GIFT  OF 


•  • 


3  191" 


The  Limitations  upon  the  Power 
of  the  Hebrew  Kings 


A  STUDY  IN  HEBREW  DEMOCRACY 


Thesis    presented    to    the   Faculty    of    the    Graduate   School    of  the 
University  of  Pennsylvania  in  Partial  Fulfilment  of  the 
Requirements  for  the  Degree  of 
Doctor  of  Philosophy 


BY 


M.  WILLARD  LAMPE 


PHILADELPHIA,  PENNSYLVANIA 

1914 


The  Limitations  upon  the  Power 
of  the  Hebrew  Kings 


A  STUDY  IN  HEBREW  DEMOCRACY 


Thesis    presented    to    the  Faculty    of    the    Graduate  School    of  the 
University  of  Pennsylvania  in  Partial  Fulfilment  of  the 
Requirements  for  the  Degree  of 
Doctor  of  Philosophy 

• 


BY 

M.  WILLARD  LAMPE 


PHILADELPHIA,  PENNSYLVANIA 
1914 


* 


TO  MY  FATHER 

TO   WHOM    I    OWE   ALL    MY   INTEREST   IN 
THE    OLD    TESTAMENT 


28  8  v;. 


ACKNOWLEDGMENT 

For  kindly  interest  and  helpful  sugges- 
tion, I  desire  to  acknowledge  my  indebt- 
edness to  Professor  Morris  Jastrow,  Jr., 
and  Assistant  Professor  James  A.  Mont- 
gomery, of  the  University  of  Pennsylvania, 
and  to  Professor  Albert  T.  Clay,  of  Yale. 

To  Thomas  Nelson  &  Sons  my  thanks 
are  due  for  permission  to  quote  from  the 
American  Standard  Bible. 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 

Chapter     I.     Introduction.     Origin  and  General  Nature  of  the  Limi- 
tations. 

1.  The  Hebrews'  Estimate  of  Their  Kingship. 

2.  Semitic    Individualism,     (a)  Lack    of     Capacity    for 

Organized    Government,     (b)   Popular    Participa- 
tion in  Public  Affairs. 

3.  Semitic  Religious  Beliefs  and  Practices.     The  Religion 

of  Yahweh:  Its  Priests,  Laws  and  Prophets. 

4.  The  Geography  of  Palestine. 

Chapter   II.     The   Period  of  the  Judges  and  the    First    Attempts    at 
Kingship. 

1.  The  Isolation  of  the  Hebrew  Tribes  and  the  Assimi- 

lation  of  Canaanitish   Civilization. 

2.  The  Rise  and  Activities  of  the  Judges. 

3.  The   Nature   of    Saul's  Kingship. 

4.  Terms  Used  for  the  Hebrew  Kings. 
Chapter  II I.     The  Kingdom  of  David  and   Solomon. 

1.  Its  Organization  and  the  Powers  of  the  King. 

2.  Its  Weaknesses  and  the  Checks  upon  the  King. 
Chapter  IV.     The  Kingdoms  of  Israel  and  Judah. 

1.  The  Jeroboam  Revolt. 

2.  Special  Developments  of  the  Period. 

3.  The  Restrictions  upon  the  Central  Power. 
Chapter   V.     The  Ideal  Kingship. 

1.  The  King  in  His  Relation  to  God. 

2.  The   King   in   His   Relation   to  the    People. 

3.  Some  Pictures  of  the  Ideal  King. 
Bibliography. 


The  Limitations  upon  the    Power 
of  the  Hebrew  Kings. 

CHAPTER  I. 

INTRODUCTION.     ORIGIN  AND  GENERAL  NATURE  OF  THE 
LIMITATIONS. 

The  estimate  which  the  Old  Testament  puts  upon  the 
Hebrew  monarchy  varies  according  to  the  age  and  point  of 
view  of  its  different  writers.  On  the  whole,  the  earlier  writers 
seem  more  favorable  to  it  than  the  later.  When  the  later 
ones  praise  it,  the  eschatological  or  ideal,  not  the  historical 
kingdom,  is  meant.  Budde  thinks  that  "bei  weitem  iiberwiegt, 
am  Anfang  wie  am  Ende,  und  selbst  in  der  Mitte  nicht  ohne 
kraftige  Vertretung,  die  giinstige  Anshauung  von  Konigtums, 
die  es  von  dem  Gotte  Israels  selbst  seinem  Volke  zum 
Segen  eingesetzt  weiss."1  There  are  many  passages  which 
lend  support  to  this  view ;  e.  g.  the  account  of  Saul's  selection 
in  1  Sam.  9-10:  16,  the  divine  covenant  with  the  House  of 
David  in  2  Sam.  7,  and  the  numerous  passages  in  which  David 
is  called  "The  Servant  of  Yahweh,"  and  the  Davidic  kingship 
viewed  as  a  type  of  the  glories  of  the  coming  age.2  But  so 
far  as  the  purely  historic  kingship  is  concerned,  the  growth  of 
a  decidedly  unfavorable  view  becomes  apparent  with  the  suc- 
cessive writers.  Indeed,  the  conception  of  a  future  ideal 
monarchy  was  doubtless  stimulated  by  a  sense  of  the  failure 
of  the  historic  monarchy.  The  Law  of  the  King,  in  Deut. 
17:  14-17,  and  the  Manner  of  the  King,  in  1  Sam.  8:  11-18, 
reveal  the  kind  of  grievances  which  led  the  people  to  complain 
and  the  prophets  to  protest  against  their  kings.  Hosea's  atti- 
tude is  very  clear.  In  2:2,  he  calls  the  coming  king  simply  a 

1  Budde :  Schatzung  des  Konigtums  im  A.  T.,  S.  32. 

2  See  also  Gen.  17 :  6,  16 ;  35  :  n  ;  49 :  10,  26;  Num.  23 :  21 ;  24 :  7 ; 
Deut.  33:  1 6. 


,  and  his  remarks  in  13:  4,  10,  11,  seem  to  indicate  that  he 
thought  there  was  no  place  at  all  for  a  human  kingship  in  a 
theocracy.  Cornill  interprets  Hosea  as  teaching  that  the  state 
was  "ein  Anflehnung  gegen  Gott,"  and  that  in  the  future  there 
would  be  no  king  or  princes  or  politics.3  The  Books  of  the 
Kings,  in  their  final  form,  condemn,  without  exception,  the 
rulers  of  the  kingdom  of  Israel,  who  "departed  not  from  all 
the  sins  of  Jeroboam,"  and  as  for  the  kings  of  Judah,  the 
majority  are  condemned  for  doing  "that  which  is  evil  in  the 
sight  of  Jehovah."4  Ezekiel  utterly  discards  the  term  melek 
in  his  description  of  the  coming  Davidic  ruler,  and  substitutes 
for  it  the  colorless  word  nasi'f  which  can  be  used  as  a  desig- 
nation for  any  chief  or  distinguished  man.6  But  some  of  the 
prophets  go  even  farther  than  this,  and  in  their  pictures  of  the 
latter  days  fail  to  mention  any  kind  of  a  human  monarchy  at 
all.  This  is  true  e.  g.  of  Isaiah  40-48,  Joel  3  and  Malachi  3-4. 
These  facts  can  be  explained  only  on  the  theory  that  the  mon- 
archy never  really  became  part  and  parcel  of  Hebrew  life. 
The  institution  was  brought  into  being  as  a  necessity,  its 
advantages  were  appreciated,  and  its  greater  representatives 
called  forth  the  praise  and  fostered  the  pride  of  the  nation, 
but  all  along  one  cannot  avoid  the  impression  that  "the  king- 
dom could  never  find,"  as  Graetz  puts  it,  "a  natural  place  in 
the  system  of  Israel's  organization,  but  was  at  all  times  re- 
garded by  more  discerning  minds  as  a  foreign  element."7 

This  view  is  further  borne  out  by  the  fact,  which  it  will 
be  the  purpose  of  this  thesis  to  show,  viz :  that  the  monarchy 
in  Israel  was  subject  to  certain  checks  and  balances,  which,  in 
varying  degree,  circumscribed  the  power  of  the  kings  and  safe- 
guarded the  liberties  of  the  people.  In  this  chapter,  it  is  pro- 
posed to  indicate  the  origin  and  general  nature  of  these  checks. 

To  understand  Semitic  temperament,  one  must  study 
Arabia  and  the  Arab.  Renan's  opinion  that  "C'est  vraiment 

3  Cornill,  Der  Israelitische  Prophetismus.     S.  55. 

4  All  Bible  quotations  in  English  are  from  the  American  Standard 
Version,  published  by  Thomas  Nelson  and  Sons. 

5  See  e.  g,  Ezek.  34 :  24 ;  37 :  25 ;  45 :  7.     In  37 :  22,  24,  melek  is 
used,  but  the  LXX  avoids  the  term. 

*Comp.  Gen.  23:  6;  Ex.  16:  22;  22:  27;  Num.  i:  16,  44. 
7  Graetz,  History  of  the  Jews,  Vol.  I,  p.  81. 

8 


1'arabie  qui  doit  etre  prise  pour  mesure  cle  1'esprit  semitique,"8 
is  shared  generally  by  scholars  today.  In  the  pre-Islamic 
Arab  and  the  modern  Bedouin,  we  see  the  type  of  the  ancient 
Hebrew.  The  outstanding  trait  of  this  type  may  be  expressed 
as  a  strong  individualism  zvithin  the  tribal  bond.  In  the  wil- 
derness and  desert  of  Arabia,  every  individual  must,  for  his 
own  protection,  attach  himself  to  some  tribe,  but  within  the 
tribe  he  is  a  free  man.  He  is  subject,  of  course,  to  the  cus- 
tomary law  of  the  community,  violation  of  which  would  mean 
death  or  banishment,  but  he  is  under  no  necessity  of  yielding 
to  the  external  authority  of  any  one  or  group  of  his  tribes- 
men. In  spite  of  the  strength  of  the  religious  and  blood  bonds, 
the  individual  can  leave  one  camp  and  join  another,  and  whole 
clans  can  desert  one  tribe  and  attach  themselves  to  another.9 
No  majority  is  big  enough  to  coerce  the  individual.  "Selbst 
der  Versuch,"  says  E.  Meyer,  "ein  einzelnes  widerstrebendes 
Geschlecht  oder  Individuum  unter  dem  Willen  der  Mehrheit 
zu  zwingen,  wurde  als  unberechtigte  Gewaltsamkeit  gelten,  die 
zu  Blutfehde  und  Zersprengung  des  Stammverbandes  fuhrt."10 
It  cannot  be  claimed  for  the  Arabs  of  the  present  day  that  they 
compare  favorably  in  all  points  with  their  progenitors  of  pre- 
Islamic  times,  but  this  passion  for  individual  freedom  seems 
to  have  remained  unimpaired.  Its  fierceness  has  been  dis- 
played in  connection  with  the  attempts  made  by  the  Turkish 
government  to  conscribe  the  Arabs  in  the  Turkish  army,  and 
in  their  preference  for  death  rather  than  submission  to  this 
abridgment  of  their  personal  freedom.11 

One  of  the  corollaries  of  Semitic  individualism  is  lack  of 
capacity  for  political  government.  Only  strong  pressure,  such 
as  dire  need,  religious  motive  or  despotic  power,  has  ever 
formed  Semites  into  an  organized  state.  Not  until  the  time  of 
Darius,  the  Persian,  did  any  government  in  western  Asia  pos- 
sess corporate  unity.12  The  Semites  seem  always  to  have  pro- 
ceeded on  the  theory  of  maintaining  the  independence  of  the 
smallest  social  unit  consistent  with  the  demands  of  self-preser- 

8  E.  Renan,  Histoire  des  langues     Semitiques,  p.  14. 

9  See  Benzinger,  Hebraische  Archaologie.     S.  295  ff. 

10  E.  Meyer.  Geschichte  des  Altertums,  Zweite  Auflage,  1 :  2 ;  S.  363. 

11  See  William  T.  Ellis,  in  The  Continent  for  January  19,  1911. 

12  See  McCurdy,  History,  Prophecy  and  the  Monuments,  I,  p.  29  ff. 

9 


vation  and  the  instincts  of  kinship  and  religion.  Whenever 
the  force  of  circumstances  compelled  the  smaller  units  to  com- 
bine into  a  larger  one,  the  resultant  unity  would  be  so  artificial 
that  the  removal  of  the  immediate  cause  for  its  existence 
would  be  followed,  as  a  rule,  by  a  falling  away  again  of  the 
smaller  parts.  Within  the  clan  or  tribe  itself  there  has  been 
little  vested  authority  or  political  solidarity.  From  time  im- 
memorial the  sheik  has  been,  and  still  is,  only  a  primus  inter 
pares.  His  duty  is  merely  to  be  a  leader  whenever  a  leader  is 
needed,  to  act  as  umpire  in  disputes,  to  preside  in  the  council 
of  elders,  to  represent  his  clan  or  tribe  in  negotiations  with 
others,  and  to  direct  in  war,  if  he  is  able  to  do  so.  His  deci- 
sions and  advice  have  no  binding  authority,  and  he  "cannot 
order  the  slightest  punishment  upon  any  member  of  the  tribe."13 
The  power  of  the  elders,  or  leading  men  of  the  tribe,  like  that 
of  the  sheik,  is  not  the  result  of  delegated  authority,  but  is 
dependent  upon  such  factors  as  personal  wisdom  and  bravery, 
the  amount  of  one's  private  property  and  the  hereditary  dig- 
nity of  the  inner  social  group  to  which  one  belongs.14  Such 
an  organization  is  clearly  a  very  imperfect  one,  furnishing  no 
adequate  protection  either  to  the  individual  or  the  tribe. 

Another  corollary  of  Semitic  individualism  is  the  persist- 
,,ence  of  the  popular  voice  in  the  affairs  of  established  states. 
G.  W.  Thatcher  calls  attention  to  an  Arabian  tradition  con- 
cerning Jabala  ibn  Aikam,  prince  of  Ghassan,  "who  accepted 
Islam,  after  fighting  against  it,  but  finding  it  too  democratic, 
returned  to  Christianity  and  exile."15  The  power  of  the  As- 
syrian kings,  their  boastful  public  records  to  the  contrary  not- 
withstanding, was  limited  by  the  council  of  elders  and  by  state 
parties,  chiefly  the  military  and  priestly.  In  the  city-states  of 
Phoenicia,  the  merchant  families  were  paramount  from  the 
earliest  times,  the  government  being  monarchical  only  in 
form.  The  king  had  to  act  "nach  dem  Beschliissen  eines 
Beiraths,  nach  dem  Willen  der  Vertreter  einer  patrizischer 
Geschlechter."16  The  prevalence  of  the  elective  principle  in 


13  Benzinger,  Article,  "Law  and  Justice,"  in  Ency.  Bib. 

14  See   Meyer,    Geschichte  des   Altertums,    Zweite   Auflage,    1 :    2, 

s.  363. 

15  Ency.  Brit.,   nth  Ed.,  Art,  "Arabia,"  p.  265. 

16  Pietschmann,  Die  Phonizier.     S.  258 

10 


Semitic  governments  is  one  of  the  best  evidences  of  their 
democracy.  In  the  records  of  the  South  Arabian  kingdoms, 
there  are  references  to  seven  electoral  princes.17  The  king- 
dom of  Israel  had  its  birth  in  a  popular  election,  and  its  fre- 
quent change  of  dynasties  warrants  Ewald's  assertion  that 
"dieses  Reich  wesentlich  ein  wahlreich  blieb."18  In  Islam  the 
first  Khalifs  were  freely  elected  by  the  Community  of  the 
Faithful.  The  Kharijite  sects  originated  in  a  protest  against 
the  willingness  of  AH,  who  had  been  regularly  elected,  to 
arbitrate  his  claim  with  Muawiya,  his  rival.  The  validity  of 
the  principle  of  election  has  been  recognized  by  the  orthodox 
Moslems  down  to  this  day,  the  Shi'ite  sects  alone  holding  to  a 
divine  appointment  or  hereditary  legitimacy  superior  to  it.19 

This  strand  of  individualism,  with  its  fibers  of  loose  gov- 
ernment and  popular  participation  in  public  affairs,  thus  runs 
through  Semitic  history  generally.  Nowhere,  however,  is  it 
more  strikingly  prominent  than  among  the  Hebrew  people. 
Its  course  to  the  end  of  the  monarchy  we  will  trace  in  the  fol- 
lowing chapters,  but  we  must  not  suppose  that  it  disappeared 
with  the  monarchy.  Individualism  has  been  characteristic  of 
the  Hebrews  as  a  race.  It  is  a  trait  which  has  appeared  in  all 
their  history,  and  is  as  marked  today  as  ever.  "No  Jewish 
people  or  nation  now  exists,"  writes  Zangwill,  "no  Jews 
even  as  sectarians  of  a  specific  faith  with  a  specific  center  of 
authority  such  as  the  Catholics  or  the  Wesleyans  possess; 
nothing  but  a  multitude  of  individuals,  a  mob  hoplessly 
amorphous,  divided  alike  in  religion  and  political  destiny. 
There  is  no  common  platform  from  which  the  Jews  can  be 
addressed,  no  common  council  to  which  any  appeal  can  be 
made."20 

Another  class  of  checks  upon  the  power  of  the  king  in 
Israel  grew  out  of  the  religious  beliefs  and  practices  of  the 
people.  As  the  most  disintegrating  factor  among  Semites 


17  See  D.   H.   Muller,  Art.,   "Sabeans,"   in   Ency.   Brit.,   nth   Ed., 
P-  957- 

18  Ewald,  Geschichte  des  Volkes  Israel.     Ill,  S.  447. 

19  See  MacDonald,  Muslim  Theology,  Jurisprudence  and  Consti- 
tutional Theory,  p.  54. 

20  Israel  Zangwill,  "The  Jewish  Race,"  in  The  Independent,  Aug. 
10,  ipri. 

II 


has  been  lack  of  capacity  for  organic  government,  so  the  strong- 
est bond  has  been  religion.  It  was  a  deep  conviction  with  every 
Semite  in  ancient  times  that  the  social  group  to  which  he 
belonged,  be  it  clan,  tribe  or  nation,  was  dependent  for  its 
very  existence  upon  a  close  solidarity  with  its  god.  This  belief 
appears,  for  example,  in  the  explanation  which  the  Syrians 
gave  of  their  defeat  by  the  Israelites :  "Their  god  is  a  god  of 
the  hills;  therefore  they  were  stronger  than  we,  but  let  us 
fight  against  them  in  the  plain,  and  surely  we  shall  be  stronger 
than  they"  (1  K.  20:  23).  A  change  of  clan  relationship  or  a 
transfer  of  residence  involved  the  adoption  of  new  gods,21 
for  prosperity  was  impossible  to  those  "who  know  not  the  law 
of  the  god  of  the  land"  (2  K.  17:26).  The  idea  of  the  god 
of  a  community  being  its  real  king  and  land-owner  goes 
back  to  the  earliest  times  among  Semitic  states.  Among  the 
early  Babylonians  "when  one  city  made  war  upon  another,  it 
was  because  their  gods  were  at  feud ;  the  territory  of  the  city 
was  the  property  of  the  city  god,  and  when  a  treaty  of  delimi- 
tation was  proposed,  it  was  naturally  the  gods  themselves  who 
arranged  it  and  drew  up  its  provisions."22  As  for  the  Hebrews, 
Piepenbring  is  fully  justified  in  stating  that  "La  tendance 
theocratique  fut  si  profondement  enracinee  en  Israel  qu'elle  a 
du  faire  partie  de  sa  foi  primitive."23 

Such  religious  concepts  made  the  will  of  the  deity,  as 
communicated  through  the  oracle,  of  binding  authority  upon 
all  classes  of  the  people.  The  usual  recipients  and  custodians 
of  the  oracle  were  the  priests,  and  as  in  the  primitive  family 
the  father  was  chief  priest,  so  in  the  early  state  the  king  held 
this  office.  Frazer  regards  the  king  as  essentially  a  priestly 
personage,  a  development  from  the  magician  or  medicine  man 
of  earlier  society.24  This  view  finds  support  in  the  history  of 
Semitic  states.  In  the  South  Arabian  kingdom  of  Saba,  the 
earlier  rulers  were  called  mukarrib,  which  means  presenter  or 
offerer,  i.  e.,  priest-king.  This  has  its  parallel  in  Babylonia, 
where  the  early  rulers  bore  the  name  patesi,  a  distinctively 


21  See  Ruth  1 :  16,  and  I  Sam.  26 :  19. 

22  King,  History  of  Sumer  and  Akkad,  p.  101. 

23  Piepenbring,  Histoire  du  Peuple  D'israel,  p.  225. 

24  Frazer,  Lectures    on    the   Early    History    of    the    Kingship,  pp. 
149-152. 

12 


religious  term,  indicating  of  the  one  to  whom  it  was  applied 
that  he  was  the  representative  of  his  god.  With  the  increase 
of  the  secular  power  of  the  patesis,  they  took  the  title  king, 
but  this  was  not  accompanied  by  any  limitation  of  their  priestly 
functions.  On  the  contrary,  they  came  to  be  looked  upon  as 
incarnate  gods,  worshipped  both  before  and  after  death. 
Naram-Sin,  e.  g.,  is  called  the  "god  of  Agade."25  This  extreme 
position  was  modified  with  the  coming  of  the  Kassites,  but  the 
distinctively  priestly  character  of  Babylonian  and  Assyrian 
kings  was  never  lost.  It  is  to  be  noted,  however,  that  the  royal 
priesthood  in  these  countries  did  not  carry  with  it  the  support 
of  the  priesthood  at  large.  On  the  contrary,  the  priests,  own- 
ing as  they  did  a  large  part  of  the  landed  property,  and  engag- 
ing extensively  in  trade  and  industry,  possessed  the  power, 
which  they  often  used,  of  causing  trouble  for  the  throne. 
From  the  reign  of  Tiglath-pileser  III  to  the  end  of  the  As- 
syrian Empire,  e.  g.,  the  internal  politics  of  Assyria  centered 
about  the  conflict  between  two  parties,  the  secular  or  military 
nobles,  and  the  priests,  who  were  represented  chiefly  in  Baby- 
lon. In  this  conflict,  with  its  series  of  revolutions,  only  two 
of  the  kings,  Sargon  and  Esarhaddon,  supported,  and  were 
supported  by,  the  priestly  class.26 

The  Old  Testament  shows  that  in  Israel,  too,  the  kings 
were  priests.  The  passages,  however,  are  so  few  in  which 
priestly  functions  are  assigned  to  royalty  that  it  is  fair  to  sup- 
pose, as  does  Benzinger,27  that  this  feature  of  the  king's  pre- 
rogative was  not  as  marked  here  as  elsewhere — a  view  sup- 
ported also  by  the  fact  that  in  many  contexts  where  both  kings 
and  priests  are  mentioned  there  is  a  clear  differentiation  of 
persons  and  functions.28  However,  the  priests,  as  a  class,  cer- 
tainly constituted  a  check  upon  the  throne.  Although  they 
were  subject  in  the  royal  towns  to  appointment  and  removal 
by  the  king,  their  hereditary  rights  were  generally  respected, 
and  the  integrity  of  their  position  is  indicated  by  the  existence 
of  a  definite  organization  among  them.29  Much  of  their  cor- 

25  See  King,  History  of  Sumer  and  Akkad,  pp.  106,  251,  298. 

26  See  Winckler,  History  of  Babylonia  and  Assyria,  pp.  243-245. 

27  Benzinger,  Hebraische  Archaologie,  S.  307. 

28  See  e.  g.  Jer.  2:  8;  Micah  3:  n;  Ezek.  7:  26,  27. 

29  Note  the  phrase,  "Elders  of  the  Priests,"  in  2  Kings  19:  2,  and 
Jer.  19:  i. 

13 


porate  strength  was  due  to  their  intimate  association  with  the 
people  as  the  custodians  of  their  health,  the  guardians  of  their 
shrines,  the  directors  of  their  religious  observances  and  repre- 
sentatives in  general  before  Yahweh.  Their  greatest  power, 
however,  issued  from  their  relation  to  the  divine  law  or  torah, 
of  which  they  were  the  mouthpieces,  interpreters,  teachers 
and  custodians.  Thus,  they,  and  not  the  king,  were  looked 
upon  as  constituting  the  original  fountain  of  justice,  and 
every  one,  including  the  king,  was  subject  to  the  law  devel- 
oped by  their  oracles  and  judicial  decisions. 

The  kings,  indeed,  possessed  judicial  authority.  In  an- 
cient times  the  chief  military  or  political  power  was  ipso  facto 
supreme  judge.  In  Ps.  2 :  10,  and  Hosea  7 :  7,  melek  and  sophet 
are  used  synonymously.  As  in  Babylonia,  so  also  in  Israel, 
appeal  from  a  local  court  to  the  king  was  perfectly  in  order. 
But  the  independent  judicial  power  of  the  Hebrew  priests  not 
only  is  suggested  by  the  constant  reference  throughout  the  Old 
Testament  to  their  judicial  activity,  but  is  clearly  asserted  in 
Deuteronomy  where  the  duties  of  both  kings  and  priests  are 
defined  and  superior  judicial  functions  assigned  to  the  latter. 
In  Deut.  17:8-13  e.  g.  the  priests  are  given  the  priority  in  the 
composition  of  the  nation's  supreme  tribunal,  while  the  king, 
here  called  sophet,  although  included,  seems  to  be  mentioned 
almost  incidentally.30  The  exact  relation  between  priestly  and 
other  jurisdiction  is  not  clear,  but  enough  is  known  to  warrant 
the  opinion  of  Stade  that  the  king  would  have  suppressed  the 
priestly  courts,  if  he  had  had  the  power  to  do  so.31 

Of  all  the  checks,  however,  which  religion  supplied  to 
limit  the  growth  of  despotism  in  the  Hebrew  monarchy,  the 
most  prominent  and  unique  was  that  furnished  by  the  growth 
of  the  prophetic  office.  The  origin  of  this  office  and  its  early 
development  do  not  concern  us  here.  Suffice  it  to  say  that 
what  was  at  first  an  order  of  men,  whose  utterances  were 
ecstatic,  and  whose  methods  probably  analogous  to  those  of 
the  whirling  dervishes  of  our  day  (e.  g.  1  Sam.  19:24),  de- 
veloped, contemporaneously  with  the  monarchy,  into  a  group 
of  individuals  who,  for  religious  insight,  ethical  perception, 
moral  courage  and  strength  of  personality,  stand  out  in  boldest 


30  See  also  Deut.  19:  16-19;  21:  1-7. 
81  .Stade,   Geschichte  des   Volkes   Israel.     I,    S.   412. 

14 


relief  against  the  whole  background  of  ancient  times.  Nothing 
fairly  analogous  to  them  can  be  found  in  any  nation  of  an- 
tiquity. Their  power  is  to  be  explained  by  various  considera- 
tions. In  the  first  place,  they  claimed  to  be,  and  generally  were 
accepted  to  be,  the  direct  representatives  of  Yahweh.  Indeed, 
the  prophetic  deliverance  was  torah,  possessing  the  same  au- 
thority and  requiring  the  same  obedience  as  that  of  the  priest.32 
Thus  saith  Yahweh,  was  the  imprimatur  of  the  prophet's  ut- 
terance, and  on  the  strength  of  this  he  could  raise  his  voice 
with  confidence  against  kings  and  dynasties.  In  the  second 
place,  the  prophets  were  the  champions  of  the  people  against 
all  forms  of  social  wrong.  Their  spirit  was  intensely  demo- 
cratic and  fervidly  human.  They  came  from  the  people,  being 
confined  to  no  caste  or  even  sex.  Untrammeled  by  any  official 
connection  with  church  or  state,  they  could  speak  according  to 
the  dictates  of  conscience  alone.  They  were  the  outstanding 
patriots  of  their  time.  In  their  prophecies  they  frequently 
identified  themselves  with  the  people,  as  in  Isa.  53,  and  the 
depth  of  their  interest  in  the  national  welfare  was  revealed  in 
outbursts  of  passion,  like  Jeremiah's,  "O  that  my  head  were 
waters  and  my  eyes  a  fountain  of  tears  that  I  might  weep  day 
and  night  for  the  slain  of  the  daughter  of  my  people"  (9:  1). 
Finally,  if  to  these  two  sanctions  of  the  prophetic  office,  viz: 
the  divine  and  the  popular,  one  adds  the  personal  traits  of  the 
prophets  themselves,  their  fearlessness  and  independence,  he 
can  understand  the  influence  they  were  able  to  exert  upon  the 
rulers  of  the  nation.  There  were,  indeed,  counter-checks  to 
this  influence.  The  official  prophetic  guilds,  which  became 
increasingly  aristocratic  and  subservient  to  the  state,  the  false 
prophets  "which  divined  for  money"  (Mic.  3:11),  and  the 
caprice  and  fickleness  of  the  people,  frequently  thwarted  the 
purpose  of  the  writing  prophets  and  their  like.  But  even 
when  their  purpose  was  thwarted,  their  voice  was  heard  with 
fear,  and  they  remained  to  the  last  the  most  vigilant  sentinels 
of  the  nation  and  the  most  intrepid  denunciators  of  evil  in 
high  and  low  alike. 

The  religion  of  Yahweh  was  the  strongest  bond  between 
the  Bene  Yisra'eL  It  was  a  force,  however,  which  as  strongly 
resisted  aggression  as  it  fostered  union.  It  developed  a  spirit 


32  See  Isaiah  i:  10;  Jer.  26:  4-6. 

15 


of  violence  against  yokes  of  all  kinds,  whether  imposed  from 
within  or  without.  In  the  course  of  its  history,  unfortunately, 
it  became  adulterated  with  beliefs  and  practices  of  a  lower 
grade  than  its  own,  and  this  admixture  weakened  the  nation's 
resistive  force  against  personal  aggrandizement ;  but,  even  then, 
the  actual  result  did  not  seem  to  be  so  much  a  growth  of  des- 
potism as  a  general  demoralization  of  the  nation  entire. 
Throughout  the  course  of  the  monarchy  no  Hebrew  king  ever 
entirely  released  his  throne  from  checks  sanctioned  and  sus- 
tained by  the  religion  of  Yahweh. 

To  complete  this  general  survey  of  the  factors  of  limita- 
tion upon  the  central  power  in  Israel,  a  glance  must  be  taken 
at  the  geography  of  Palestine.  For  of  the  checks  thus  far 
discussed,  the  political  especially  received  strong  reinforce- 
ment from  the  physical  features  of  this  land.  Geographically, 
Palestine  is  as  broken  as  Greece.  The  Lebanon  ranges  and  the 
low-lying  Jordan  valley  between  them  form  three  well-defined 
parallel  sections  running  from  north  to  south.  The  western 
Lebanon  range  is  broken  by  the  Plain  of  Esdraelon,  north  of 
which  lie  the  plateaus  and  small  east-and-west  running  ranges 
of  Galilee,  and  south  of  which  are  the  mountains  of  Samaria, 
which  converge  to  form  the  high  and  broken  table-land  of 
Judaea.  The  range  to  the  east  of  the  Jordan  is  not  so  broken 
as  its  western  counterpart.  It  is  made  up  principally  of  high 
plateaus ;  but  in  Gilead,  which  is  the  part  of  this  section  figur- 
ing most  in  Hebrew  history,  the  cross-valleys  are  more  numer- 
ous than  in  either  Hauran,  to  the  north,  or  Moab,  to  the  south. 
The  diversity  of  physical  features  in  Palestine  is  sharp  within 
small  compass.  The  average  altitude  of  the  table-land  of 
Judaea  is  2400  feet;  the  Dead  Sea  lies  1300  feet  below  sea- 
level.  The  soil  of  Samaria  produces  husbandmen;  that  of 
Judaea,  shepherds.  From  the  Jordan  valley,  in  summer,  with 
the  temperature  at  100°  F.,  one  can  see  snow  on  Hermon.  In 
view  of  such  diversity  of  soil,  climate  and  land-formation,  it 
is  not  surprising  that  the  peoples  which  have  inhabited  Pales- 
tine have  been  of  diverse  types,  and  that  there  can  be  main- 
tained there  side  by  side,  as  at  the  present  day,  the  most  dis- 
tinct forms  of  culture  and  life.  The  Hebrew  monarchy 
throughout  its  history  suffered  from  this  lack  of  geographical 
homogeneity.  It  could  never  fully  overcome  the  barriers  which 

16 


nature  had  placed  between  the  different  sections  of  the  land. 
The  defence  of  the  borders  was-  always  difficult,  and  it  was 
next  to  impossible  to  carry  on  any  uniform  internal  adminis- 
tration or  effectively  to  quell  any  local  insubordination  or 
revolt.33 


33  See  G.  A.  Smith,  The  Historical  Geography  of  the  Holy  Land. 
In  Chap.  II  will  be  found  the  source  of  some  of  the  above  material. 


CHAPTER  II. 

THE  PERIOD  OF  THE  JUDGES  AND  THE  FIRST  ATTEMPTS  AT 

KINGSHIP. 

The  entrance  of  the  Hebrews  into  the  land  of  Canaan 
was  accompanied  by  momentous  changes  in  their  habits  of  life 
and  in  their  relations  to  each  other.  The  abandonment  of 
nomadic  life  for  permanent  settlements  and  agricultural  pur- 
suits involved  isolation  from  each  other.  This  was  increased 
both  by  the  physical  features  of  the  country  and  by  the  pre- 
occupation of  the  Canaanites,  whom  the  Israelites  were  able 
only  partially  to  dislodge.  The  Canaanite  cities  of  Beth-shean, 
Taanach,  Dor,  Ibleam  and  Megiddo,  situated  in  the  Plain  of 
Esdraelon,  separated  the  northern  from  the  central  tribes, 
while  these  latter  were  shut  off  from  their  more  southern  kins- 
men by  Har-heres,  Aijalon  and  Shaalbim.  (Jud.  1:27,  35.) 
Perhaps  the  best  single  evidence  of  this  tribal  isolation  is 
Deborah's  song  of  victory  over  the  Canaanites,  in  which  it 
appears  that  some  of  the  tribes  very  close  to  the  scene  of  con- 
flict did  not  participate  in  it.  (Jud.  5:  15-17.) 

Isolated  thus  from  each  other,  the  Hebrews  gradually 
came  to  associate  with  their  Canaanite  neighbors.  The  cities 
which  they  failed  to  capture  in  war  they  assimilated  in  peace. 
Intermarriage,  commercial  relations,  political  and  religious 
alliances  broke  up  to  a  considerable  extent  the  old  tribal 
arrangements  and  formed  new  social  units.  In  the  town  of 
Shechem,  for  example,  Canaanites  and  Hebrews  freely  inter- 
mingled and  called  their  common  god  by  the  significant  name 
bacal-benth.  (Jud.  8:  33;  9.)  This  amalgamating  process, 
however,  did  not  destroy  tribal  and  clan  consciousness  among 
the  Hebrews,  but  only  added  a  new  element  to  it.  The  subse- 
quent development  of  the  Hebrew  state  may  be  said  to  have 
resulted  from  the  union  of  two  bonds;  a  spiritual  one, — the 
sense  of  racial  and  religious  kinship,  and  a  material  one, — the 
prepared  Canaanite  soil  upon  which  the  Hebrews  settled.  It 
is  literally  true  that  the  Hebrews  developed  their  distinctive 

18 


civilization  because  they  remembered  Yahweh  when  they  came 
to  possess  cities  which  they  had  not  built,  houses  which  they 
had  not  filled,  cisterns  which  they  had  not  hewn,  vineyard  and 
olive  trees  which  they  had  not  planted.  (Deut.  6:  10-12.)  In 
other  words,  the  evolution  of  civilization  here,  as  elsewhere, 
resulted  from  the  coalescence  of  two  different  kinds  of 
civilization. 

The  Canaanites  influenced  Hebrew  life  most  in  furnishing 
a  model  for  the  organization  of  government  on  a  local  terri- 
torial basis.  Were  it  not  for  this,  the  tribes  could  not  have 
passed  so  readily  or  uniformly  from  nomadic  to  settled  life. 
The  territorial  unit  adopted  was  the  city  with  its  daughters, 
i.  e.,  its  dependent  villages  and  environs,  and  the  government 
of  this  was  vested  in  the  heads  of  all  the  free  families  within 
it.  The  general  name  applied  to  these  officials  was  2eqenim 
(elders),  and  the  number  in  each  city  varied  according  to  the 
number  of  clans  or  families.  In  the  small  town  of  Succoth 
there  were  seventy  seven.  (Jud.  8:  14.)  The  existence  of  a 
select  group  of  officials  among  the  elders  themselves  is  indi- 
cated by  the  use  of  sanm  in  connection  with  seqenim, — a  datum 
made  use  of  by  Sulzberger  in  support  of  his  thesis  that  the 
Hebrews  had  a  bi-cameral  parliament,  known  in  early  times 
as  the  Edah,  and  in  later  times  as  the  Am-ha-Aretz.34 

The  functions  of  the  city  elders,  although  different  in 
form  and  of  greater  variety,  were  essentially  the  same  as 
those  of  the  elders  of  the  tribe.  They  were,  first  and  fore- 
most, representatives  of  the  whole  body  of  citizens.  This  is 
evidenced,  for  example,  by  the  fact  that  a  sentence  of  death, 
pronounced  by  them,  was  carried  out  by  the  community 
(Deut.  17:  2-7).  They  were  both  judges  and  executives,  being 
called  in  the  former  capacity  sophetim,  and  in  the  latter 
soterim.S5  They  were  also  the  directors  of  military  policy 
(1  Sam.  11:3)  and  mediators  between  their  constituencies 
and  outsiders  (1  Sam.  16:4). 

Thus  the  cities  with  which  the  Hebrews  became  identified 
after  their  entrance  into  Canaan  were  self-governing  com- 


3*M.  Sulzberger,  The  Am-ha-Aretz. 

*5  See   Deut.    16 :    18 ;   Joshua  8 :   33 ;    and    Nowack,    Hebraische 
Archaology,  p.  322,  with  note. 

19 


munities.  Their  relation  to  the  monarchy  when  it  arose  will 
be  discussed  in  the  sequel,  but  it  may  here  be  added  that  the 
vigor  with  which  they  maintained  their  rights  is  indicated  by 
the  persistence  of  the  elders'  office  and  functions  throughout 
the  monarchy  and  beyond.  In  the  settlements  of  the  exile,  the 
elders  were  still  the  representatives  of  the  people  and  the 
directors  of  their  affairs;36  they  led  in  the  return  from  exile 
and  in  building  the  temple  ;37  it  was  with  them  that  the  Persian 
governor  dealt,38  and  general  administrative  powers  were  still 
in  their  hands.39  Indeed,  the  Gerousia  of  the  Greek  period 
was  without  doubt  a  development  of  the  Council  of  Elders, 
for  "the  Gerousia,  the  Great  Synagogue  and  the  Sanhedrin 
were  not  mushrooms  which  sprang  up  over  night,  but  giant 
trees  whose  seeds  were  planted  centuries  before,  in  the  minds 
and  hearts  of  the  people."40 

The  disorganization  among  the  Hebrews  prior  to  the 
monarchy  is  well  described  by  the  historian  who  wrote: 
"There  was  no  king  in  Israel ;  every  man  did  that  which  was 
right  in  his  own  eyes."  The  force  which  did  away  with  this 
condition  was  the  religion  of  Yahweh  acting  under  the 
stimulus  of  foreign  oppression.  The  fields  and  flocks  belong- 
ing to  the  Hebrews  invited  raids  which  they  found  them- 
selves unable  to  ward  off.  This  meant  not  only  destitution 
and  oppression  for  them,  but  humiliation  for  Yahweh !  Hence 
the  wars  of  Yahweh,  to  defend  his  honor  and  free  his  land 
from  the  possession  of  those  who  were  not  his  servants.  The 
united  effort  which  was  thus  secured  was  at  first  only  local 
and  temporary.  Under  the  rallying  cry  of  one  who  was  a  fit 
leader,  the  Hebrews  of  a  certain  locality  would  resist  a  raid  or 
throw  off  an  oppression,  and,  their  object  accomplished,  con- 
ditions would  resume  much  as  before.  The  leader  of  such  a 
move  was  called  sophet,  in  conformity  with  the  ancient  prac- 
tice of  associating  the  right  to  judge  with  the  ability  to  rule. 
There  is  no  evidence  that  the  earlier  of  these  sdphetim 

36  Ezek.  8:  i;  20:  T;  Jer.  29:   i. 

37  Ezra  6 :  7,  14. 

38  Ezra  5:  95  6:  7. 
38  Ezra  10 :  7,  8,  14. 

40  Sulzberger,  The  Am-ha-Aretz,  p.  7/. 

20 


attempted  to  retain  special  powers  after  their  specific  mission 
was  performed,  but  as  time  went  on,  marked  tendencies 
appeared  in  two  directions;  the  unions  of  resistance  became 
wider  in  scope,  and  the  sophetim  showed  disinclination  to 
resign  all  their  powers  when  the  crisis  which  called  them  forth 
had  been  successfully  met. 

The  first  extensive  federation  of  the  tribes  was  under 
the  leadership  of  Deborah  of  Ephraim,  and  Barak  of 
Naphtali,  and  was  directed  against  the  Canaanites  of  the 
Plain  of  Esdraelon  and  the  north.  The  nucleus  of  the  federa- 
tion seems  to  have  been  Zebulon  and  Naphtali  (Jud.  4:10; 
5:18),  but  assistance  was  furnished  by  Ephraim,  Benjamin, 
Manasseh,  Issachar  and  probably  Reuben  (Jud.  5:14-16). 
However,  the  leaders  and  the  federation  itself  disappear  from 
view  after  a  single  victory  is  won. 

Gideon  of  Manasseh  also  secured  support  in  his  campaigns 
from  other  tribes  than  his  own  (Jud.  6:35;  7:23,  24).  But 
the  important  fact  about  him  is  that  he  was  the  first  sophet 
actually  to  establish  permanent  personal  authority  over  his 
tribe.  He  became  to  all  intents  and  purposes  a  king,  as  is 
evidenced  by  the  offer  of  an  hereditary  kingship  to  him 
(Jud.  8:22),  by  the  priestly  functions  which  he  exercised 
(vs.  27),  and  by  the  name  of  his  son,  Abimelech,  who  also 
became  king,  although  not  without  difficulty  (Jud.  9:1-6). 
With  the  death  of  Abimelech,  however,  there  was  no  attempt 
to  secure  a  succession,  but  "the  men  of  Israel  departed  every 
man  unto  his  place"  (vs.  55). 

Jephthah  was  another  sophet  who  retained  his  power 
after  the  performance  of  aj  special  task  (Jud.  11:8-11). 
Indeed,  he  would  not  consent  to  act  as  leader  at  all  without 
the  promise  of  continued  recognition  as  such.  He  was  not 
called  king,  however,  but  only  ro's. 

It  is  important  to  note  that  in  all  these  miniature  king- 
ships the  initiative  was  taken  by  the  people  themselves  or  by 
their  representatives.  The  crown  was  offered  to  Gideon  by 
the  men  of  Israel  (Jud.  8:  22)  ;  Abimelech  was  made  king  by 
the  men  of  Shechem  (Jud.  9:6);  and  it  was  the  elders  of 
Gilead  who  said  to  Jephthah  "thou  shalt  be  our  head"  (Jud. 
11:8). 

21 


The  path  to  national  kingship  was  prepared  by  these 
sophetim,  and  to  a  real  federation  of  the  tribes  by  these  occa- 
sional alliances.  Fortunately,  this  path  had  been  prepared  by 
the  time  of  the  appearance  of  the  Philistine  menace,  for  the 
Philistines  were  not  an  enemy  which  could  be  kept  at  bay 
by  any  makeshift  means.  It  required  permanent  leadership, 
even  in  times  of  comparative  peace,  to  secure  military  effi- 
ciency against  them.  An  individual  possessing  the  qualifica- 
tions for  such  leadership  was  found  by  the  patriot-seer 
Samuel  in  Saul  of  Benjamin,  who,  accordingly,  was  anointed 
by  him  to  be  naghidh  over  the  inheritance  of  Yahweh  (1  Sam. 
10:  1).  The  people,  however,  would  not  fully  accept  Saul 
until  he  had  proved  his  worth.  An  opportunity  of  doing  this 
was  presented  in  the  siege  of  Jabesh-Gilead,  to  the  relief  of 
which  he  roused  the  tribes,  winning  a  glorious  victory.  Then 
it  was  that  "all  the  people  went  to  Gilgal,  and  there  they 
made  Saul  king"  (1  Sam.  11: 15). 

The  kingship  of  Saul  was  of  a  purely  military  kind.  He 
did  practically  nothing  in  the  way  of  internal  administration. 
There  was  no  court  or  cabinet,  properly  speaking,  much  less  a 
system  of  royal  district  officials.  Gibeah,  Saul's  farmer- 
home,  was  kept  as  his  seat  of  government,  a  place  "der  weder 
Vergangenheit  noch  Zukunft  hatte  .  .  .  der  beste  Beweis 
dass  Saul  das  Organ  zum  Konig  fehlte."41  Even  in  military 
affairs  his  organization  was  very  loose.  There  was  nothing 
which  could  fairly  be  called  a  standing  army,  although  indi- 
vidual military  geniuses  attended  him  (1  Sam.  14:  52).  Local 
and  tribal  distinctions  remained  very  marked.  Because  of  this 
the  king  had  to  rely  chiefly  upon  his  own  family  and  tribe 
for  support.  He  appointed  his  cousin  Abner,  e.  g.,  to  the  chief 
position,  next  his  own,  in  the  army,  and  selected  all  his  officials 
from  Benjamin,  his  own  tribe  (1  Sam.  14:50;  22:7).  The 
free  outlaw  life  of  David  in  Judaea,  and  the  ready  election  of 
David  by  the  Judseans  after  the  death  of  Saul  show  how 
limited  was  Saul's  control  of  the  south  of  the  country.  Indeed, 
the  influence  of  the  king  over  his  immediate  attendants  seems 
to  have  depended  upon  his  ability  to  supply  them  with  the 
rewards  of  booty  and  position  (1  Sam.  22:7-8).  The  power 


Kittel,  Geschichte  der  Hebraer,  II,  S.  134. 

22 


of  the  elders  remained  intact,  and  the  wholesome  respect  with 
which  they  were  regarded  by  Saul  is  reflected  in  the  request 
he  made  of  Samuel  to  honor  him  in  their  presence  (1  Sam. 
15:30).  For  the  priesthood,  at  least  under  provocation,  he 
did  not  show  the  same  regard,  slaughtering  in  one  instance 
the  priests  of  Nob  because  of  their  dealings  with  David 
(I  Sam.  22:llfT).  But  undoubtedly  acts  of  this  kind  only 
weakened  his  rule  by  alienating  from  his  support  not  only  the 
priestly  class,  but  the  rank  and  file  of  the  people,  to  whom  it 
was  a  sin  thus  "to  fall  upon  the  priests  of  Jehovah"  (vs.  17). 
Moreover,  the  breach  between  Samuel  and  Saul  was  due  to 
religious  causes,  whatever  their  precise  nature  may  have  been, 
and  Saul's  perception  of  the  weakening  effect  upon  his  own 
position  of  the  loss  of  Samuel's  favor  is  clearly  preserved  in 
the  tradition  (1  Sam.  15 :  35),  and  without  doubt  was  account- 
able in  part  for  the  melancholia  of  his  later  days. 

The  evidence  thus  indicates  that  not  only  was  the  sphere 
of  Saul's  kingship  very  limited,  but  within  that  sphere  his 
authority  rested  upon  precarious  ground.  He  owed  his  eleva- 
tion to  a  realization  by  the  tribes  that  they  needed  a  permanent 
military  chief.  No  organic  union  was  formed,  only  a  federa- 
tion for  the  one  purpose  of  fighting  common  enemies.  His 
rule,  however,  was  both  continuous  and  of  an  inter-tribal 
character,  and  so  marked  an  advance  over  the  achievement 
of  any  sophet,  and  in  turn  paved  the  way  for  the  greater  work 
of  unification  accomplished  by  his  successors. 


As  this  brings  us  to  a  consideration  of  the  fully  estab- 
lished monarchy,  a  note  may  be  added  on  the  terms  by  which 
the  Hebrew  kings  are  designated.  The  ordinary  term  is 
melek.  The  corresponding  Arabic  root  means  to  possess  or 
own  exclusively,  and  the  Assyrian  malaku  signifies  to  counsel 
or  to  advise.  These  analogies,  with  the  facts  to  which  atten- 
tion has  already  been  called,  viz.,  the  growth  of  patesis  into 
kings  in  Assyria,  the  rise  of  kings  after  mukarribs  in  South 
Arabia,  and  the  synonymous  use  of  melek  and  sophet  in  the 
Old  Testament,  suggest  that  the  underlying  idea  in  the  term 
is  the  possession  of  such  political  power  as  to  make  judicial 
decisions  of  binding  authority. 

23 


The  term  naghidh  is  used  of  six  of  the  Hebrew  kings, 
viz.,  Saul  (1  Sam.  9:  16),  David  (1  Sam.  13:  14+),  Solomon 
(1  K.  1:35+),  Jeroboam  I  (1  K.  14:7),  Baasha  (1  K.  16:2) 
and  Hezekiah  (II  K.  20:5),  and  almost  invariably  in  pro- 
phetic passages  in  which  their  appointment  over  Israel  or 
over  his  people,  or  over  my  people  Israel  is  attributed  to 
Yahweh.  The  term  has  the  general  sense  of  leader  or  com- 
mander*2 and  is  used  of  rulers  in  various  capacities,  political, 
military  and  religious.43  Its  use  as  a  substitute  term  for 
melek  seems  to  be  only  another  indication  of  prophetic  dis- 
approval of  the  whole  idea  of  human  kingship. 

The  term  nas? ',  which,  with  one  doubtful  exception,44 
is  used  exclusively  by  Ezekiel  so  far  as  it  refers  to  occupants 
of  the  Hebrew  throne,  and  the  term  masiach,  which  designates 
one  as  a  representative  of  the  deity,  will  be  referred  to  more 
fully  in  the  chapter  on  the  Ideal  Kingship. 


42  See  Isaiah  55 :  4,  where  naghidh  h  parallel  to    mesawweh. 

43  Comp.  Jer.  20:    i;   Ezek.  28:  2;   T    Chron.  12:  27;   26:  24;   2 
Chron.  32:  21. 

44  i  Kings  ii :  34.     The  Heb.  back  of  the  Gr.  text  did  not  have 
the  word. 

24 


CHAPTER  III. 
THE  MONARCHY  OF  DAVID  AND  SOLOMON. 

After  the  death  of  Saul,  Abner  secured  the  recognition  of 
Ish-baal,  Saul's  son,  as  king  "over  all  Israel"  (2  Sam.  2:9). 
It  was  found  impossible,  however,  to  check  the  growing 
power  of  David,  who  was  accepted  as  king  in  Judah,  and  who 
was  popular  even  in  the  north.  Hence,  when  Abner  finally 
deserted  Ish-baal,  and  the  latter  himself  was  killed,  the  way 
was  open  for  "all  the  elders  of  Israel"  to  go  to  Hebron  and 
anoint  David  king  over  the  entire  land  (2  Sam.  5:3). 

David's  purpose  to  act  as  a  national  king,  and,  moreover, 
his  genius  for  such  a  role,  appear  in  the  first  act  recorded  of 
his  reign,  viz.,  the  selection  of  Jerusalem  as  capital.  Hitherto 
no  tribe  had  been  able  to  dispossess  the  Jebusites  of  this  city; 
hence  it  was  neutral  ground  and  fitted  to  forestall  prejudice. 
Then,  too,  it  occupied  a  splendid  position  for  defense,  thereby 
inspiring  confidence  and  pride.  Finally,  it  was  situated  in  the 
border  land  between  Benjamin  and  Judah,  and  so  kept  David 
in  close  touch  with  his  naturally  most  loyal  constituents,  the 
Judaeans. 

The  military  organisation  developed  by  David  was  as 
much  superior  to  Saul's  as  his  conquests  were  wider  and  more 
brilliant.  Saul  had  a  "captain  of  the  host"  and  a  loose  body- 
guard (I  Sam.  22:6,  17),  but  no  standing  army.  David,  on 
the  contrary,  had  a  commander-in-chief  of  the  army,  a  well- 
organized  bodyguard  (2  Sam.  20:23;  23:23),  groups  of 
chieftains  called  The  Three  and  The  Thirty  (2  Sam.  23:  13, 
19,  23,  24),  and,  most  important  of  all,  a  permanent  fighting 
force  with  settled  garrisons  in  conquered  countries  (2  Sam. 
8:6,  14).  With  this  organization  he  was  able  to  win  con- 
tinued military  successes,  and  at  the  end  of  his  reign  bequeath 
to  his  successor  a  kingdom  of  substantial  peace. 

The  development  of  the  monarchy  is  seen,  furthermore,  in 
the  multiplication  and  growing  importance  of  state  officials. 

25 


Comparing  2  Sam.  20:23-26  with  1  K.  4:1-6,  we  see  that 
the  chief  officers,  outside  of  the  military,  were  the  mazkir, 
or  historiographer;  the  sopher,  or  writer  of  state  documents 
and  the  king's  correspondence ;  the  'aser  cal-hannnas,  or  over- 
seer of  the  task-workers ;  and  the  royal  priests.  In  addition 
to  these,  Solomon  had  an  officer  over  the  house  (1  K.  4:6), 
who  is  probably  to  be  identified  with  the  household  soken,  or 
treasurer;  a  chief  in  charge  of  the  administrative  officers  of 
the  provinces  (1  K.  4:5,  7);  cupbearers  and  the  numerous 
other  servants  who  invariably  accompany  an  oriental  court 
(1  K.  10:5).  As  theoretically  all  the  state  officials  were 
entirely  dependent  upon  the  king,  and  the  mere  instruments 
of  his  will,  a  certain  amount  of  centralism  was  bound  to  result 
from  this  system.  It  both  developed  a  growing  seclusion  of 
the  king  from  the  people  at  large,45  and  at  the  same  time 
enabled  him  to  keep  in  close  touch  with  the  country's  affairs, 
as  was  indicated  by  the  current  saying,  "there  is  no  matter 
hid  from  the  king"  (2  Sam.  18:  13). 

For  purposes  of  internal  administration  David  took  a 
census  of  the  people  of  the  land  (2  Sam,  24:4fT),  and 
Solomon  divided  it  into  thirteen  districts,46  with  a  royal  repre- 
sentative in  each.  In  each  case  the  object  was  the  same,  viz., 
provision  for  tax-levies,  war-service  and  work  upon  public 
enterprises.  Solomon's  extensive  building  operations  and  the 
gratification  of  his  tastes  generally  bear  witness  to  the  effi- 
ciency of  the  methods  used. 

As  further  indications  of  the  strength  and  enterprise  of 
the  monarchy,  there  may  be  cited  its  commercial  activity  and 
the  flourishing  condition  of  its  foreign  relations.  As  to  the 
former,  there  are  references  to  a  system  of  royal  weights 
(2  Sam.  14:26)  and  to  extensive  trade  operations,  which 
were  a  source  of  royal  revenue  (1  K.  9:26;  10:  11,  15,  22). 
The  stability  of  foreign  relations  is  seen  in  the  final  cessation 
of  the  Philistine  menace,  in  treaties  such  as  those  with  Tyre 
and  Egypt,  in  the  story  of  the  visit  of  the  Queen  of  Sheba  and 
in  the  prevailing  peaceful  conditions  of  Solomon's  reign. 


45  Note  the  phrase,   "beholders  of  the   face  of   the  king1/'  2   K. 
25:  19. 

46  The  twelve  enumerated  in  i  K.  4 :  7  ff,  and  jjudah. 

26 


Both  David  and  Solomon  exercised  priestly  functions. 
The  former,  on  the  occasion  of  the  bringing  of  the  ark  to 
Jerusalem,  offered  sacrifices  and  blessed  the  people  (2  Sam. 
6:  17,  18)  ;  the  latter,  at  the  dedication  of  the  temple,  blessed 
the  people  and  prayed  (1  K.  8:  14,  23,  55),  and  on  various 
occasions  offered  sacrifices  (1  K.  3:4,  1 5  ;  9 :  25 ) .  The  sons 
of  David  are  explicitly  called  priests  (2  Sam.  8: 18).  More- 
over, under  the  sponsorship  of  Solomon,  the  cults  of  the 
surrounding  nations  were  introduced  into  Jerusalem  and  given 
official  protection  (1  K.  11:1-8),  this  being  an  outcome  of  the 
alliances  he  made  with  the  nations  concerned. 

Large  judicial  powers  were  wielded  by  both  David  and 
Solomon.  Absalom  is  represented  as  having  "stolen  the 
hearts"  of  the  nation  through  his  influence  over  those  who 
"came  to  the  king  for  judgment,"  and  a  good  interpretation  of 
the  kingship  is  found  in  his  plea,  "Oh,  that  I  were  made  judge 
in  the  land  that  any  man  who  hath  any  suit  or  cause  might 
come  unto  me,  and  I  would  do  him  justice!"  (2  Sam.  15 :  1-6). 
As  for  Solomon,  his  reputation  came  to  rest  largely  upon  his 
renown  as  a  judge  (1  K.  3:28).  Indeed,  it  was  because  of 
the  well-recognized  judicial  authority  of  the  king,  coupled 
with  the  common  practice  of  appeal  to  him,  that  Solomon 
was  able  to  extend  the  royal  estates  as  he  did;  for  this  was 
undoubtedly  done  through  travesties  on  justice,  by  which  land 
was  arbitrarily  appropriated  and  its  owners  reduced  to  serf- 
dom. In  the  records  preserved  to  us  such  proceedings  are 
freely  acknowledged  so  far  as  the  non-Israelitish  inhabitants 
of  the  land  are  concerned  (IK.  9:20-21),  and  the  sequel  to 
Solomon's  reign  leaves  little  doubt  that  the  same  policy  was 
pursued  toward  the  Israelites  themselves.  Other  seemingly 
arbitrary  acts  of  the  king,  for  most  of  which,  however,  there 
was  much  more  justification,  were  based  upon  his  judicial 
authority.  Among  these  may  be  mentioned  David's  execution 
of  Rechab  and  Baanah  (2  Sam.  4:  12),  his  disposition  of  the 
property  of  Mephibosheth  (2  Sam.  16:4;  19,:  29),  Solomon's 
dispatching  of  Joab,  Adonijah  and  Shimei,  and  his  deposition 
of  Abiathar  (1  K.  2:  13-46). 

The  government  of  David  and  Solomon,  therefore, 
achieved  no  small  success  in  overcoming  the  disintegrating 
forces  existent  in  Israel,  and  in  centralizing  in  the  king  large 

27 


powers  which  under  Solomon  became,  in  some  ways,  despotic. 
But  it  is  to  be  remembered  that  this  period  in  Israel's  history 
lasted  for  only  two  generations,  and  was  followed  by  a  violent 
reaction,  and,  furthermore,  that  even  during  this  period  there 
were  checks  upon  the  king  which  operated  with  considerable 
force.  It  is  to  these  that  we  now  turn. 

In  the  first  place,  we  note  the  continuance  of  local  self- 
government.  The  eldership  remained  unimpaired.47  There 
was  nothing  in  Solomon's  division  of  the  country  into  thirteen 
districts  to  suggest  any  change  in  the  management  of  ordinary 
local  affairs.  As  to  the  relations  existing  between  the  local 
officials  and  the  royal  representatives,  nothing  very  definite 
can  be  said,  but  it  is  safe  to  assume  that  outside  of  special 
tasks  assigned  them,  the  work  of  the  king's  officers  was  pri- 
marily to  collect  revenue,  and  secondarily  to  act  as  appellate 
judges  in  cases  where  the  local  authorities  could  not  or  did  not 
afford  relief.  This  was  far  from  destroying  local  initiative 
or  self-government. 

In  the  rise  of  David  to  power  we  see  plainly  the  influence 
of  the  local  units  at  that  period.  Abner,  strong  as  he  was, 
could  not,  merely  by  his  defection,  hand  over  the  northern 
tribes  to  David,  but  it  was  necessary  to  enter  into  communica- 
tion with  the  elders  of  Israel  as  to  their  desires  in  the  matter 
(2  Sam.  3: 17ff),  and  as  David  was  made  king  over  Judah  by 
the  "men  of  Judah"  (2  Sam.  2:4),  so  "all  the  elders  of 
Israel"  made  him  king  over  the  whole  land  (2  Sam.  5: 1-3). 
In  the  accession  of  Solomon  we  see  the  workings  of  an  estab- 
lished monarchy  with  its  implication  of  the  hereditary  idea, 
but  with  no  suppression  of  the  popular  voice.  David's  choice 
could  not  have  been  made  effective  without  popular  approval 
(1  K.  1 :39,  40)  any  more  than  the  schemes  of  Adonijah  could 
have  succeeded  without  the  same  sanction.  Wines  makes  the 
interesting  remark  "that  the  right  of  setting  aside  the  first 
born  by  the  arbitrary  will  of  the  king  is  not  usual  in  hereditary 
monarchies,  and  therefore  it  is  probable  that  it  was  conferred 
upon  David  by  the  terms  of  the  capitulation"  (of  the  tribes 
at  Hebron).48  But  this  supposition  is  not  at  all  necessary.  The 


47  See  e.  g.,  2  Sam.  17:  4,  15;  i  Kings  8:  1-3. 

48  Wines,  Laws  of  the  Ancient  Hebrews,  p.   562. 

28 


success  of  David's  rule  was  sufficient  guarantee  that  the  mon- 
archy would  remain  in  the  possession  of  his  family,  while  the 
strength  of  his  personal  influence,  coupled,  doubtless,  with  the 
popularity  of  Solomon,  was  sufficient  to  secure  the  latter's  en- 
dorsement by  the  people  against  the  claims  of  all  others. 

The  independent  power  of  the  people,  as  expressed  in 
their  local  associations,  appears  indirectly  in  the  attitude  of 
both  David  and  Solomon  toward  the  nation  at  large.  This  atti- 
tude was  one  of  positive  distrust.  David  refused  to  commit 
the  defence  of  his  throne  and  his  personal  safety  to  his  own 
countrymen,  but  entrusted  it  to  foreigners — the  Pelethites, 
Cherethites  and  Gittites.  These  constituted  his  bodyguard, 
and  to  them  he  turned  in  the  hours  of  greatest  danger  (2  Sam. 
15:  18;  20:  7).  Moreover,  when  he  selected  his  officials  from 
among  the  Hebrews,  he  preferred  his  own  kinsmen  to  all 
others  (2  Sam.  19:  11-13).  In  the  case  of  Solomon,  it  was 
this  same  distrustful  spirit  which  led  him  to  ignore  the  natural 
divisions  of  the  country  for  administrative  purposes.  There 
is  every  reason  to  believe  that  the  wholesome  respect  for  ex- 
isting local  authority,  which  David  showed  at  the  very  begin- 
ning of  his  reign  in  sending  presents  to  the  elders  of  the  cities 
of  Judah,  remained  a  characteristic  of  the  kingship  throughout 
this  period  of  the  monarchy  (1  Sam.  30:  26-31). 

Still  again,  the  throne's  limitations  were  revealed  by  the 
instigation  of  rebellions  against  it.  In  David's  time  the  chief 
of  these  were  Absalom's,  in  which  the  original  conspirators 
were  Judsean  tribesmen  of  the  king  (2  Sam.  15:9-12),  and 
Sheba's,  in  which  the  line  of  cleavage  was  tribal  (2  Sam.  20). 
Hence,  we  note  the  unchecked  insubordination  of  the  Hebrews 
both  as  individuals  and  in  their  group  connections.  During 
the  reign  of  Solomon,  there  was  no  revolution  so  far  as  the 
records  go,  but  the  factors  which  make  for  revolution  were 
present;  they  were  kept  in  check,  indeed,  by  the  glories  of  a 
reign  which  fascinated  the  popular  mind  in  spite  of  the  hard- 
ships imposed,  but  with  the  hand  of  Israel's  grand  monarch 
removed,  the  old  intolerance  of  restraint  again  appeared  in 
revolutionary  form. 

Furthermore,  it  cannot  be  supposed  that  the  state  officials 
themselves  did  not  possess  and  assert  rights  which  tended  to 
check  the  free  exercise  of  the  royal  will.  Solomon,  at  the  be- 

29 


ginning  of  his  reign,  made  use  of  his  personal  popularity  and 
of  the  pretext  afforded  by  Adonijah's  attempted  usurpation, 
to  clean  the  slate  of  political  enemies,  and  the  glitter  of  his 
court  seems  to  have  dazed  his  servants  into  a  considerable 
degree  of  submissiveness  as  long  as  he  lived ;  but  the  action  of 
Jeroboam,  who,  while  still  a  state  official,  had  the  courage  "to 
raise  his  hand  against  the  king"  (1  K.  11 : 26),  and  the  advice 
of  Solomon's  ministers  that  Rehoboam  should  be  more  lenient 
than  his  father  (1  K.  12:6,  7),  show  that  Solomon  could  not 
keep  all  of  his  servants  in  an  attitude  of  fawning  approval. 
David  found  it  impossible  to  curb  the  arbitrary  conduct  of  his 
general,  Joab,  who,  against  the  king's  wish  and  with  impunity, 
murdered  both  Abner  and  Amasa,  and  who  felt  free  to  criticise 
his  lord  (2  Sam.  3 :  2*4,  25).  The  plaint  of  David  that  "these 
men,  the  sons  of  Zeruiah,  are  too  hard  for  me"  (2  Sam.  3 :  39), 
may  well  express  the  attitude  of  both  David  and  Solomon 
toward  other  ministers  whose  names  have  not  come  down  to  us. 
Finally,  religious  forces  were  active  in  combating  royal 
arbitrariness  during  this  period.  It  was  not  yet  the  time  of  the 
great  prophets,  but  in  the  activities  of  men  like  Gad,  Nathan 
and  Ahijah,  we  see  the  beginnings  of  that  fierce  condemnation 
of  social  wrong,  and  of  the  courage  to  put  the  blame  where  it 
belongs,  so  characteristic  of  the  later  messengers  of  Yahweh. 
Gad  protested  against  an  enumeration  of  the  people  for  reve- 
nue purposes  (2  Sam.  24)  ;  Nathan  condemned  David  for  the 
violation  of  another's  home  and  for  murder  (2  Sam.  12)  ; 
Ahijah  protested  against  the  oppression  of  Solomon  (IK. 
11 :26ff),  and  in  no  one  of  these  cases  is  there  any  evidence 
that  the  prophet  was  harmed  for  his  conduct.  On  the  con- 
trary, the  royal  attitude  was,  and  continued  to  be,  one  of  re- 
spect for  the  prophetic  office.  Moreover,  Solomon's  introduc- 
tion of  foreign  religious  cults  into  the  land,  accompanied  as 
this  was,  not  only  by  the  inflow  of  foreign  wealth  and 
ideas,  but  by  a  growing  moral  and  religious  laxity,  only 
tended  to  undermine  his  monarchy.  For,  on  the  one  hand,  the 
strongest  national  bond  which  existed — the  religion  of  Yahweh 
— was  thereby  weakened,  and  on  the  other,  the  ire  of  the  Yah- 
wistic  party,  which  stood  for  the  old  civilization  as  against  the 
new,  was  so  aroused  that  it  did  what  it  could  to  hasten  the 
disruption  of  the  monarchy  and  to  discourage  attempts  at  re- 

30 


union  after  the  break  had  come  (1  K.  12 :  22-24).  The  religion 
of  Yahweh  encouraged  union  among  its  true  adherents,  but 
it  preferred  disunion  to  surrender. 

The  supreme  proof,  however,  of  the  restricted  nature  of 
David's  and  Solomon's  power  is  found  in  the  Jeroboam  revolt, 
and  in  the  permanent  national  schism  which  was  created 
thereby. 


CHAPTER  IV. 
THE  KINGDOMS  OF  ISRAEL  AND  JUDAH. 

The  split  of  the  Hebrew  monarchy  into  two  parts  was 
occasioned  by  the  oppression  of  Solomon,  but  its  fundamental 
causes  lay  much  deeper.  From  the  very  beginning  of  the 
Hebrew  occupation  of  Canaan,  Judah  had  maintained  its 
identity  as  against  the  tribes  to  the  north.  It  had  fought  its 
way  into  southern  Palestine  with  the  help  only  of  Simeon, 
and  throughout  the  period  of  the  Judges  pursued  its  own 
course.  Deborah  failed  even  to  mention  it  as  a  source  from 
which  aid  might  be  expected  for  the  alliance  formed  by  her- 
self and  Barak.  Nominally  Judah  was  a  part  of  Saul's  king- 
dom, but  we  have  seen  how  uncertain  its  support  was.  Con- 
versely, when  the  kingdom  under  David  was  established  on  a 
Judaean  base,  the  loyalty  of  the  north  became  subject  to  sus- 
picion— a  suspicion  confirmed  by  the  jealousies  and  rebellions 
of  David's  reign,  and  by  Solomon's  method  of  districting  the 
land.  The  fact  that  the  terms  Judah  and  Israel,  as  designa- 
tions for  the  south  and  north,  respectively,  are  used  conjointly 
to  express  the  idea  of  all  Israel,  even  in  early  narratives,49 
shows  how  deep-seated  this  distinction  was.  The  basis  of  the 
Jeroboam  revolt  was  as  old  as  the  settlement  in  Palestine ;  nay, 
older.  The  real  preparation  for  it  is  to  be  found  in  those  indi- 
vidualistic traits  which  were  prominent  in  Hebrew  character 
from  the  beginning,  and  which,  although  checked,  could  not 
be  subdued  by  an  oppression  such  as  Solomon's. 

The  circumstances  attending  the  accession  of  Rehoboam 
and  Jeroboam's  revolt  reveal  several  facts  germane  to  our 
thesis.  In  the  first  place,  we  note  that  Rehoboam  went  to 
Shechem  to  be  made  king  by  "all  Israel"  (1  K.  12:1).  This 
procedure  in  itself  showed  a  lack  of  cordial  support  on  the 
part  of  the  northern  tribes.  David  could  have  selected  no 
better  capital  than  Jerusalem,  but  evidently  neither  its  natural 


49  See  e.  g.,  i  Sam.  n  :  8;  17:  52;  2  Sam.  u:  n. 

32 


fitness  nor  the  prestige  which  it  had  acquired  by  two  long  and 
brilliant  reigns  were  able  to  remove  tribal  prejudice.  With- 
out doubt,  Rehoboam  was  acclaimed  king  in  Jerusalem,  but  his 
journey  to  the  north  is  explained  only  on  the  ground  that,  what- 
ever the  local  enthusiasm  of  this  acclamation  may  have  been, 
it  lacked  all  signs  of  possessing  a  national  character.  Further- 
more, in  the  deliberations  between  king  and  people  in  Shechem, 
it  is  clear  that  the  people,  while  recognizing  the  hereditary 
claims  of  Rehoboam,  retained  the  right  to  accept  or  reject  him, 
according  as  he  promised  or  refused  to  rule  in  harmony  with 
their  desires.  Rehoboam  theoretically  recognized  this  right 
when  he  took  the  people's  proposals  into  consideration  for 
three  days,  and  no  finer  definition  of  the  Hebrew  idea  of  king- 
ship can  be  found  than  that  which  the  tradition  assigns  to 
Rehoboam's  elderly  advisors,  who  said:  "If  thou  wilt  be  a 
servant  unto  this  people  this  day  and  wilt  serve  them,  and 
answer  them  and  speak  good  words  to  them,  then  they  will 
be  thy  servants  for  ever"  (1  K.  12:7).  The  protest  of  the 
tribes  was  not  against  the  kingdom  per  se,  but  against  royal 
arbitrariness,  and  when  the  protest  was  not  heeded,  they  re- 
belled, and  Jeroboam  was  raised  by  popular  acclaim  to  the 
throne  (vs.  20).  The  ease  with  which  the  revolution  was  ac- 
complished shows  how  artificial  the  centralism  of  David  and 
Solomon  was.  By  such  simple  means  as  the  rehabilitation  of 
ancient  shrines  to  counteract  the  influence  of  the  Jerusalem 
temple,  the  breach  between  the  north  and  the  south  was  made 
permanent  (vs.  26-29). 

It  is  no  part  of  our  purpose  to  trace  the  varying  fortunes 
of  the  kingdoms  of  Judah  and  Israel.  It  is  sufficient  to  point 
out,  by  way  of  contrast  between  the  two,  the  greater  stability 
of  the  kingdom  of  Judah.  This  was  due  to  many  causes, 
among  which  may  be  mentioned  a  greater  racial  and  geograph- 
ical solidarity,  less  exposure  to  attack  because  of  better  natural 
protection  and  more  isolated  position,  and,  lastly,  the  prestige 
of  a  permanent  royal  line  with  direct  descent  from  David  and 
Solomon.  But  of  necessity  the  two  kingdoms  influenced  each 
other,  and,  in  general,  their  resemblances  exceeded  their  dif- 
ferences. There  were  corresponding  social  and  religious  devel- 
opments in  each,  and,  so  far  as  the  king  was  concerned,  similar 
restrictions  and  powers. 

33 


We  note,  first,  certain  demoralizing  tendencies  of  the  period 
with  their  results  upon  the  position  of  the  king.  The  most 
important  of  these  was  the  break-up  of  the  social  democracy 
of  the  nation. .  Class  distinctions  arose — the  inevitable  outcome 
of  the  protracted  wars  of  the  two  kingdoms,  and  intensified  by 
their  commercial  activity.  The  system  of  state  officials  only 
aggravated  the  situation  by  offering  an  opportunity  for  selfish 
aggrandizement  under  royal  protection,  with  resulting  cruelty 
and  injustice.  Hence,  the  poor  and  the  rich,  the  officials  and 
those  without  court  connections,  became  hostile  toward  each 
other.  This  development  was  not  prominent  for  some  time 
subsequent  to  the  division  of  the  monarchy.  In  Judah  espe- 
cially, there  seems  to  have  been  a  reaction  against  Solomon's 
orientalism  and  a  resumption  of  simple  ways,  which  lasted  for 
upwards  of  a  century.  During  the  second  quarter  of  the 
8th  century,  however,  in  the  contemporary  reigns  of  Uzziah 
and  Jeroboam  II,  comparative  peace  prevailed,  trade  flourished, 
wealth  rolled  into  Samaria  and  Jerusalem,  and  marked  social 
classes  appeared.  The  princes  or  officials  henceforth  assumed 
a  most  important  role  in  both  governments,  and  in  the  last 
days  of  the  Judsean  state,  practically  turned  the  monarchy 
into  an  oligarchy.  The  whole  movement,  of  course,  weakened 
the  nation's  democratic  spirit,  but  so  far  as  the  king  was  con- 
cerned, it  gave  rise  to  the  new  check  of  a  rich  and  well-en- 
trenched aristocracy — a  check  well  illustrated  in  the  relation 
of  Zedekiah  to  his  princes,  to  whom  he  said,  "the  king  is  not 
he  that  can  do  anything  against  you"  (Jer.  38:  5). 

Foreign  interference,  with  its  accompanying  wars  and 
rumors  of  wars,  was  another  devitalizing  force.  The  Syrians, 
Assyrians,  Egyptians  and  Babylonians,  by  appropriating  terri- 
tory, imposing  tribute  or  simply  depleting  the  population,  grad- 
ually wore  out  the  Israelites  and  Judseans.  These  things  not 
only  impoverished  them,  but  led  to  many  distractions  and  much 
party  wrangling,  and  in  the  end  to  the  humiliation  of  having 
their  kings  appointed  for  them  by  foreign  rulers.  But  here 
again  the  situation  gave  rise  to  a  new  form  of  check  upon  the 
royal  power.  Parties  arose  which  were  differentiated  from 
each  other  according  to  their  proposals  of  self-defense,  alli- 
ance or  submission.  The  king  was  not  only  unable  to  control 
these  parties,  but  his  very  safety  depended  upon  his  attach- 

34 


ment  to  the  one  which  at  the  time  was  strongest.  Pekahiah  in 
Israel  lost  his  life  because  the  pro-Assyrian  party,  to  which 
he  and  his  father  belonged,  fell  into  disfavor  (2  K.  15:  19-26, 
29),  and  probably  the  murder  of  Amon  in  Judah  was  due  to 
the  increasing  strength  of  the  prophetic  party,  which,  in  Josiah's 
reign,  stood  for  self-reliance  and  opposed  all  foreign  connec- 
tions. During  the  last  days  of  both  kingdoms,  the  king  was 
little  more  than  a  puppet  alternately  in  the  hands  of  foreign 
rulers  and  local  parties. 

A  third  disintegrating  factor  was  the  continuance  of  com- 
promise in  religion.  During  the  periods  of  Phoenician,  Syrian 
and  Assyrian  influence,  religious  innovations  from  these  sources 
took  their  place  beside  Yahweh  worship,  becoming  entrenched 
even  in  the  sacred  precincts  of  the  Jerusalem  temple  (Ezek.  8). 
Such  compromises  could  not  but  impair  the  national  unity,  for 
they  weakened  the  strongest  bond  which  held  the  Hebrews  to- 
gether. The  sin  of  Jeroboam  was  his  degrading  of  the  cult  in 
Israel  to  a  plane  lower  than  that  which  the  best  Yahweh  wor- 
ship had  reached,  for  in  setting  up  the  worship  of  Yahweh 
under  the  image  of  a  bull,  there  was  a  clear  adaptation  to 
Canaanitish  nature-worship,  from  which  the  Jerusalem  temple 
at  the  time  was  free,  and  in  the  selection  of  priests  "from 
among  all  the  people"  (1  K.  12:  31 ;  13:  33),  the  king  showed 
clearly  enough  that  his  purpose  in  religious  supervision  was  of 
a  political  nature.  This  policy,  though  temporarily  successful, 
was  bound  to  result  disastrously  to  both  the  nation  and  the 
throne ;  to  the  nation,  because  of  the  demoralization  which  Sy- 
rian nature-rites  inevitably  produced ;  and  to  the  throne,  because 
of  the  reaction  against  this  policy  on  the  part  of  the  spiritually 
minded,  under  the  leadership  of  the  prophets  of  Yahweh.  The 
sin  of  Jeroboam  was  an  important  contributing  cause  in  mak- 
ing the  northern  kingdom  for  a  long  time  the  scene  of  much 
greater  prophetic  activity  than  the  southern.  But  in  Judah, 
too,  the  prophets,  when  they  did  appear,  were  called  forth 
largely  in  opposition  to  religious  compromise,  so  that  this 
tendency  also,  like  the  others  we  have  mentioned,  may  be  said 
to  have  called  into  being  new  checks  upon  royalty,  while 
vitiating  to  some  extent  the  old. 

These  special  tendencies,  however,  modifying  though 
their  influence  was,  did  not  destroy  the  old  forces  and  con- 

35 


ditions  which  were  restrictive  of  centralized  power.  Local  and 
tribal  separateness  was  never  overcome.  The  ease  with  which 
the  Syrians,  and  later  the  Assyrians  (2  K.  15:29),  overran 
the  territory  north  of  Esdraelon  shows  what  a  breach  there  was 
between  Galilee  and  its  southern  neighbors.  The  territory 
east  of  the  Jordan  received  the  same  scant  protection  against 
invaders,  and  its  practical  independence  is  illustrated  in  the 
statement,  which  is  given  as  a  special  note,  that  Pekah,  in  his 
rebellion  against  Pekahiah,  had  the  assistance  of  "fifty  men 
of  the  Gileadites"  (2  K.  15:25).  Isaiah  portrayed  the  antag- 
onism even  of  tribes  closely  related,  in  the  striking  passage — 
"they  shall  eat  every  man  the  flesh  of  his  own  arm ;  Manasseh, 
Ephraim ;  and  Ephraim,  Manasseh ;  and  they  together  shall  be 
against  Judah"  (Isa.  9:  20,  21).  The  isolation  of  the  cities  of 
the  land  was  just  as  great  in  the  Assyrian  campaigns  as  at  the 
Hebrew  conquest  (2  K.  15:29;  18:  13),  and  in  the  organiza- 
tion of  the  military  by  city-units  it  is  possible  to  detect  a  fur- 
thering cause  of  this  isolation  (Amos.  5:3). 

This  separateness  of  existence  was  accompanied  by  inde- 
pendence of  local  administration.  The  elders  remained  in  high 
esteem  and  of  great  importance.  According  to  Isaiah,  they 
were  among  the  most  valuable  assets  of  Judah  and  Jerusalem 
(Isa.  3:1,  2),  The  kings  took  counsel  of  them  in  matters  of 
foreign  (1  K.  20:7,8)  and  domestic  (2  K.  23:1)  policy. 
Their  judicial  rights  remained  intact.  Ahab,  for  example, 
found  it  impossible  to  secure  the  property  of  Naboth  without 
judicial  authorization  by  the  people's  representatives,  viz.,  the 
seqenhn  and  the  horim  (1  K.  21)  ;  and  in  the  trial  of  Jeremiah 
it  is  notable  that  his  accusers  did  not  go  to  Jehoiakim  for  judg- 
ment, but  to  the  cam,  whom  Sulzberger,  with  great  plausibility 
in  this  passage,  argues  to  be  elders  or  representatives  of  the 
people50  (Jer.  26:8ff).  In  the  organization  of  the  courts  at- 
tributed to  Jehoshaphat,  there  is  no  indication  that  he  inter- 
fered with  the  customary  rights  of  local  officials.  He  was  con- 
cerned mainly  with  establishing  a  system  of  appeal,  and  so  far 
as  his  lay  appointments  are  specified,  they  were  from  "the 
heads  of  the  fathers'  houses"  (2  Chron.  19:  5fT).  Stade  asserts 
that  it  was  in  judicial  matters  that  the  old  clan  organization 


50  Sulzberger,  The  Am-ha-Aretz,  yp.  42  50. 

36 


gave  the  longest  and  most  powerful  opposition  to  the  king.51 
This  is  doubtless  true,  and,  of  course,  it  would  be  just  at  this 
point  where  such  opposition  would  involve  the  greatest  check 
upon  the  royal  power. 

The  independent  strength  of  the  people  as  a  whole  is  seen, 
furthermore,  in  the  control  which  they  kept  over  the  succes- 
sion of  their  kings.  In  Judah  the  royal  line  was  fixed ;  never- 
theless each  succeeding  king  was  raised  to  the  throne  by  the 
people,  as  is  expressly  stated  in  the  case  of  Joash  (2  K.  11 :  12', 
13);  Uzziah  (2  K.  14:21);  Josiah  (2  K.  21:23,24)  and 
Jehoahaz  (2  K.  23:  30).  The  kingdom  of  Israel  started  in  a 
popular  election,  and  the  elective  principle  never  became  sub- 
ject to  a  fixed  hereditary  line.  Indeed,  so  democratic  were  the 
tribes  of  the  north  that  one  wonders  if  Solomon's  succession 
to  David  without  their  formal  consent,  or  if  Rehoboam's  suc- 
cession to  Solomon,  prior  to  any  consultation  with  them,  did 
not  have  something  to  do  with  the  Jereboam  revolt.  But  not 
only  did  the  people  control  the  succession  of  their  kings;  on 
occasion  they  deposed  them.  In  Judah,  under  the  leadership 
of  Jehoiada,  they  deposed  Athaliah  (2  K.  11 :  13-16).  In  Israel 
the  overthrow  of  the  successive  dynasties  was  accomplished  by 
military  chieftains,  usually  captains  of  the  host,  who  ranked 
next  to  the  king  (2  K.  4:  13),  and  who  were  thus  in  a  position 
to  curry  personal  favor  from  the  fighting  strength  of  the  na- 
tion (1  K.  16:9,  16;  2  K.  9:5;  15:25).  It  is  true  that  the 
success  of  their  intrigues  was  due  as  much  to  their  individual 
genius  as  to  any  spontaneous  popular  action,  but  this  only 
makes  clearer  the  fact  that  the  throne  rested  upon  very  tran- 
sient values  and  was  practically  without  guarantees  of  support. 
In  Judah  there  was  a  counter-check  in  the  people's  inbred  loy- 
alty to  the  established  Davidic  line,  but  in  Israel  there  was  little, 
if  any,  restraint  to  keep  them  from  withdrawing  their  alle- 
giance at  will. 

The  kings  continued  to  exercise  priestly  and  religious 
functions.  They  were  the  chief  supervisors  of  religion,  setting 
up  altars,  high  places,  asherim  and  pillars,  (1  K. 
16:  32;  2  K.  21 :  3ff),  or  destroying  the  same  (2  K.  3 :  2;  18: 
4).  They  sacrificed  and  burnt  incense  (IK.  12:27-33;  2 


51  Stade,  Geschichte  des  Volkes  Israel,  I,  S.  411. 

37 


Chron.  25:  14).  They  collected  money  for  religious  purposes 
(2  K.  12:4ff;  22:4),  and  exercised  freedom  in  the  use  of 
temple  treasures  (2  K.  16:  8;  18:  15).  Ahaz  not  only  acted  as 
a  priest  himself,  but  issued  commands  for  the  whole  arrange- 
ment of  the  temple  cult  (2  K.  16 :  lOff).  The  priests,  as  a  class, 
however,  although  at  times  manifesting  subservience  to  the 
king  (e.  g.  2  K.  16:  llff),  at  other  times  exhibited  splendid 
aggressiveness.  It  was  Jehoiada,  the  priest,  who  inspired  and 
directed  the  conspiracy  which  removed  Athaliah  and  put  Joash 
on  the  throne  (2  K.  11),  and  possibly  the  prestige  acquired 
for  the  priesthood  by  this  memorable  act  had  something  to  do 
with  the  struggle  between  it  and  the  throne,  vouched  for  by 
the  Book  of  Chronicles.  There  it  is  recorded  that  Zachariah, 
the  son  of  Jehoiada,  outspokenly  opposed  Joash  and  in  so  doing 
lost  his  life  (2  Chron.  24:15-22),  while  later  an  encounter 
between  Uzziah  and  the  priesthood  led  to  consequences  which 
were  serious  for  the  king  (2  Chron.  26:  17-20).  Kittel  is  cer- 
tainly right  in  saying  that  there  is  no  good  reason  summarily  to 
reject  this  tradition.52  It  is  not  inconsistent  with  the  repre- 
sentation of  Kings  and  it  harmonizes  well  with  the  independent 
spirit  of  the  Hebrew  people. 

The  restrictions  which  were  imposed  upon  the  kings  of 
this  period  by  customary  and  written  law  have  already  been 
referred  to  in  part.  Such  acts  as  the  purchase  of  the  hill  of 
Samaria  by  Omri  (1  K.  16:  24)  show  that  the  right  of  private 
property  was  respected.  Indeed,  this  right  was  so  well  en- 
trenched that  when  Ahab  tried  to  override  it  in  his  dealings 
with  Naboth,  he  was  at  his  wits'  end  and  accomplished  his 
purpose  only  by  a  resort  to  underhanded  methods,  which,  how- 
ever, were  carried  out  in  full  conformity  with  the  law  (IK. 
2:1).  It  is  certain,  moreover,  that  this  manifest  perversion  of 
justice  was  one  of  the  causes  which  led  to  the  overthrow  of  his 
dynasty  by  Jehu  (2  K.  9 :  25,  26) .  The  safety  of  private  prop- 
erty to  the  very  end  of  the  Judaean  kingdom  is  indicated  by 
Jeremiah's  purchase  of  real  estate  from  his  cousin  (Jer.  32: 
6-15).  Such  facts  as  these  suggest  that  the  picture  of  the 
kingdom  drawn  in  1  Sam  8 :  lOff  has  to  do  only  with  special 
periods  and  individual  instances  and  not  with  the  usual  con- 


52  Kittel,  Geschichte  der  Hebraer,  II,  S.  281. 

38 


dition  of  affairs.  The  Deuteronomic  law  of  the  king,  to  which 
Josiah  at  least  definitely  subscribed  (2  K.  23:3),  stated  that 
the  king  was  as  much  subject  to  law  as  the  people,  and,  indeed, 
that  it  was  his  special  duty  to  study  the  law  and  obey  it  "that 
his  heart  be  not  lifted  up  above  his  brethren"  (Deut.  17 :  18-20). 
The  covenant  which  Josiah  and  all  the  people  made  before 
Yahweh  implied  a  common  recognition  of  the  divine  sanction 
of  law  and  involved  an  obligation  on  the  part  of  the  king  to 
the  people,  and  of  the  people  to  the  king,  to  obey  it  (2  K.  23 : 
1-3).  The  same  was  true  of  the  covenant  which  Jehoiada 
made  "between  Jehovah  and  the  king  and  the  people  that  they 
should  be  Jehovah's  people;  between  the  king  also  and  the 
people"  (2  K.  11 :  17).  The  position  of  the  priesthood  in  both 
of  these  transactions  is  noteworthy.  In  the  case  of  Jehoiada,  it 
was  a  priest  who  administered  the  covenant,  while  in  the  case 
of  Josiah,  it  was  a  priest  from  whom  was  secured  the  law  to 
which  the  king  subscribed. 

We  come  finally  to  a  consideration  of  the  prophets  in  their 
relation  to  the  kingdoms  of  Israel  and  Judah.  For  the  first 
two  centuries  after  the  disruption,  their  activities  were  much 
greater  in  the  north  than  in  the  south — a  fact  which  is  to  be 
attributed  partly  to  the  existence  of  schools  of  the  prophets  in 
the  north,  and  partly  to  the  reaction  against  the  Tyrian  proph- 
ets of  Baal  introduced  by  Ahab.  But  with  the  rise  of  the 
great  writing  prophets  in  the  8th  century,  Judah  also  came 
under  their  spell  and  remained  so  to  the  downfall  of  the  state. 
There  was  no  class  of  men  which  the  kings  of  Judah  and  Israel 
more  respected  or  feared.  Their  spirit  of  freedom  in  denounc- 
ing kings  as  well  as  others  was  irrepressible.  Amos  prophesied 
against  the  house  of  Jeroboam  and  the  royal  sanctuaries  of 
Israel  with  impunity,  for  seemingly  the  only  thing  which  Ama- 
ziah,  the  priest  of  Bethel,  could  do  was  to  advise  him  to  return 
to  Judah  (Amos.  7:8ff).  Jeremiah  uttered  his  prophecies  of 
destruction  within  the  temple  area  adjoining  the  royal  palace, 
but  when  he  was  imprisoned,  it  was  for  a  supposedly  treacher- 
ous act,  and  not  for  his  words  (Jer.  37:  11-15).  The  influen- 
tial standing  of  the  prophets  appears  in  the  fact  that  the  kings 
repeatedly  went  to  them  for  advice.  Ahab  inquired  of  them 
whether  he  should  go  up  against  the  Syrians  (1  K.  22:6); 
Hezekiah  sent  to  Isaiah  at  the  time  of  Sennacherib's  invasion 

39 


(2  K.  19:  2)  ;  and  although  Jeremiah  censured  "the  shepherds" 
because  they  did  not  "enquire  of  Yahweh"  (Jer.  10:  21),  Zede- 
kiah  brought  him  secretly  from  prison  to  ascertain 
what  the  divine  will  was  (Jer.  37:16-17).  In  the  field  of 
politics  the  prophets  'worked  actively,  and  on  questions  of 
national  policy  their  notions  were  very  set.  The  division  of 
the  kingdom  was  favored  and  promoted  by  Alii j  ah  (1  K.  11 : 
29ff),  and  by  Shemaiah  (1  K.  12:  22-24).  Elijah  and  Elisha 
undoubtedly  had  much  to  do  with  the  revolution  of  Jehu  (1 
K.  19:  16;  2  K.  9:1-6).  Isaiah  antagonized  with  great  zeal 
the  idea  of  any  alliance  with  Egypt,  and  the  strength  of  his 
influence  at  court  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  the  preparations  for 
such  an  alliance  were  concealed  from  him  (Isa.  30:  1-5;  31: 
1-3).  Jeremiah  preached  his  politics  incessantly,  and  in  the 
royal  presence  with  as  much  freedom  as  elsewhere,  as  when 
he  said  to  Zedekiah,  "Bring  your  necks  under  the  yoke  of  the 
king  of  Babylon,  *  *  *  and  live"  (Jer.  27:  12).  Of  course 
the  degree  of  success  achieved  by  the  prophets  varied  accord- 
ing to  such  factors  as  the  strength  of  their  own  personalities, 
the  measure  of  popular  support  which  they  received,  and  the 
vindication  in  one  way  or  another  of  their  prophecies.  Heze- 
kiah's  reform,  for  example,  was  the  result  of  the  prophetic 
leadership  of  men  like  Isaiah  and  Micah  (Jer.  26:  18,  19),  in 
conjunction  with  the  vindication  of  Yahweh's  power  as  seen  in 
the  deliverance  of  Jerusalem  from  Sennacherib,  and  the  con- 
sequent popular  support  given  to  prophetic  measures.  Con- 
flicts of  opinion  between  the  prophets  themselves,  such  as  that 
between  Jeremiah  and  Hananiah  (Jer.  28),  weakened  their  in- 
dividual and  combined  strength.  It  was  of  this  that  Jeremiah 
complained  when  he  said  "the  prophets  prophesy  falsely,  and 
the  priests  bear  rule  by  their  means ;  and  my  people  love  to 
have  it  so"  (Jer.  5 :  31).  Yet  this  plaint  itself  bears  witness  to 
the  dignity  and  power  of  the  prophetic  office  at  its  best.  The 
kings  of  Israel  and  Judah  could  neither  ignore  nor  suppress  it. 
Indeed,  Ewald  calls  the  most  characteristic  feature  of  the 
northern  kingdom  "der  Gegensaz  der  koniglichen  und  der  pro- 
phetischen  Gewalt,"53  and  of  Judah  the  same  may  be  said  from 
the  days  of  Isaiah  on,  if  with  the  king  is  included  the  aris- 


53  Ewald,  Geschichte  des  Volkes  Israel,  III,  S.  448. 

40 


tocracy.  The  prophets  owed  their  authority  to  no  official  po- 
sition, but  simply  to  the  common  right  of  free  speech  in  the 
name  of  God.  No  better  proof  could  be  had  of  the  democracy 
of  the  Hebrew  people  or  of  the  continuance  of  their  early  in- 
dividualistic spirit  throughout  the  period  of  their  single  and 
separate  kingdoms. 


CHAPTER  V. 
THE  IDEAL  KINGSHIP. 

Their  experience  with  the  rule  of  kings  made  it  natural 
for  the  Hebrews  to  express  their  deepest  longings,  particularly 
when  a  crisis  was  on,  in  monarchical  terms.  Thus  there  arose 
ideals  of  kingship,  and  no  sketch  of  the  Hebrew  monarchy 
would  be  complete  were  these  not  considered.  Important  for 
our  purpose,  a  study  of  them  will  reveal  the  ideal  limitations 
put  by  the  people  upon  their  kings,  and  thus  throw  light  upon 
the  actual  limitations  as  we  have  observed  them  to  exist,  and 
bring  into  clearer  relief  the  whole  political  genius  of  the  na- 
tion. It  will  not  be  necessary  for  us  to  trace  the  development 
of  these  ideals  during  the  monarchy,  nor  the  modifications  to 
which  they  were  subjected  in  post-monarchical  times.  The  im- 
portant fact  is  that  however  they  differed  in  detail,  there  ran 
through  them,  from  first  to  last,  certain  great  governmental 
principles  in  which  we  see  confirmed  our  thesis  of  a  limited 
monarchy  in  Israel. 

These  principles  may  be  summed  up  in  two  propositions : 
First,  the  king  is  the  true  representative  of  the  nation's  God; 
and,  second,  the  king  is  the  true  representative  of  the  nation 
he  rules.  Hence,  the  checks  upon  his  power  are  fundamentally 
two,  viz.,  the  divine  will,  and  the  social  conscience.  In  the 
course  of  the  chapter  we  shall  first  consider  the  king  in  his 
relation  to  God,  then  in  his  relation  to  the  people,  and  finally 
give  some  concrete  idealizations  of  him  in  which  may  be  seen 
the  expression  of  both  these  relationships. 

The  real  king  of  Israel  was  Yahweh — a  thought  abun- 
dantly expressed  in  the  Psalms  and  the  Prophets.  When  the 
human  kingship  arose,  Yahweh's  rule  did  not  cease,  but  was 
only  modified  by  making  the  human  king  his  representative. 
Their  relationship  to  each  other  is  revealed  by  the  titles  and 
descriptive  epithets  which  were  applied  to  the  human  king. 
Important  among  these  was  masiach,  anointed  one.  The  oil, 
by  the  use  of  which  in  anointing,  kings  were  consecrated  to 

42 


their  office,  symbolized  the  Spirit  of  Yahweh  himself.  The 
anointing  of  Saul,  e.  g.,  was  attended  by  the  coming  of  the 
Spirit  of  Yahweh  upon  him  (1  Sam.  10:  1,  6,  10),  and  when 
David  was  anointed,  it  is  stated  that  the  Spirit  of  Yahweh 
"came  mightily"  upon  him  "from  that  day  forward"  (1  Sam. 
16:  13).  Hence,  a  masiach,  possessing  Yahweh's  spirit,  was 
ipso  facto  his  representative,  even  to  the  extent  of  being  inviol- 
able ( 1  Sam.  24 :  7 ;  26 :  9) .  All  the  kings  of  the  Hebrews  were 
undoubtedly  inducted  into  office  with  the  ceremony  of  anoint- 
ing (e.  g.  1  K.  1 :  39;  2  K.  11 :  12),  but  it  is  a  striking  fact  that 
the  title  masiach  is  not  given  to  any  of  them  except,  as  it  were, 
idealistically.  Outside  of  the  Saul  and  David  narratives,  it  is 
used  only  in  late  passages,  probably  all  post-monarchical.  At 
any  rate,  it  is  never  applied  to  a  Hebrew  king  in  a  contempo- 
rary historical  or  prophetic  passage.  It  is  employed  only  by 
fond  memory  or  hopeful  anticipation.  This  throws  light  upon 
the  Hebrews'  estimate  of  their  monarchy.  They  probably 
never  denied,  in  their  thinking  of  any  individual  king,  the 
implicates  of  the  title  masiach,  but  their  use  of  the  title  shows 
that  it  represented  conditions  which  were  more  ideal  than  real. 
In  the  later  hopes  of  the  Jewish  people  it  came  to  be  the 
designation,  par  excellence,  of  their  ideal  king. 

Two  other  titles  which  designated  the  ideal  king  as  Yah- 
weh's representative  were  ben,  son,  and  cebhed,  servant.  Ex- 
amples of  the  former  are  found  in  2  Sam.  7 :  14  and  Ps.  2:7; 
of  the  latter  in  2  Sam.  3  :  18  and  Jer.  33  :  21,  26.  These  words 
have  two  features  in  common ;  they  refer,  as  titles  of  royalty, 
only  to  David  or  the  Davidic  dynasty,  and  they  are  used  of  the 
people  as  a  whole  as  well  as  of  the  king.  Israel  is  called 
Yahweh's  son,  e.  g.,  in  Ex.  4:22,  23  and  Hosea  11:  1,  and 
Yahweh's  servant  in  Isa.  41 :  8  and  Jer.  46:  27,  28.  Hence,  as 
the  nation  itself  was  representative  of  Yahweh,  so  also  the 
nation's  kings.  It  is  interesting  to  note  that  the  titles  cebhed 
and  masiach  are  used  virtually  as  synonyms  in  Ps.  89:  51,  52. 

The  perfect  harmony  between  Yahweh  and  the  ideal  king 
is  revealed  furthermore  in  expressions  where  the  two  are 
closely  associated  or  even  identified.  The  following  may  serve 
as  examples :  "They  shall  serve  Jehovah,  their  God,  and  David, 
their  king"  (Jer.  30:9)  ;  "In  that  day  *  *  *  the  house  of 
David  shall  be  as  God,  as  the  angel  of  Jehovah  before  them" 

43 


(Zech.  12:8)  ;  'Then  Solomon  sat  on  the  throne  of  Jehovah 
as  king"  (1  Chron.  29:23).  In  the  development  of  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Messianic  King,  he  and  Yahweh  seem  almost  in- 
terchangeable. Now  one  and  now  the  other  acts  as  the  direct 
leader  and  protector  of  their  people.  To  quote  Gressmann: 
-"Die  Funktionem  beider  sind  fast  noch  identisch.  Der  Messias 
wird  mehr  als  ein  zum  Gott  erhobener  Konig,  Jahwe  mehr  als 
ein  zum  Konig  erhobener  Gott  beschrieben."54 

Hence,  a  clear  limitation  upon  the  power  of  the  king  in 
the  ideal  monarchy  was  the  will  of  God,  whose  representative 
he  so  truly  was.  This  limitation  may  be  illustrated  by  two 
verses  from  the  Psalms:  "If  thy  (David's)  children  will  keep 
my  covenant  and  my  testimony  *  *  *  their  children  also 
shall  sit  upon  thy  throne"  Ps.  132:12.  "If  his  (David's) 
children  forsake  my  law,  and  walk  not  in  mine  ordinances 
*  *  *  then  I  will  visit  their  transgression  with  the  rod" 
Ps.  89:30,  32. 

The  ideal  king,  moreover,  was  a  true  representative  of  the 
people.  This  is  suggested  by  the  fact  to  which  reference  has 
already  been  made  that  the  same  terms,  viz.,  ben  and  cebhed, 
were  used  to  describe  the  relation  in  which  both  king  and 
people  stoofl  to  their  God.  Furthermore,  we  have  such  expres- 
sions as  "their  ruler  shall  proceed  from  the  midst  of  them" 
(Jer.  30:21),  and  "he  (the  Branch)  shall  grow  up  out  of  his 
place"  (Zech.  6:12).  But  most  important  of  all  are  those 
passages  which  refer  to  the  ideal  king  as  being  of  the  seed  of 
Abraham,  or,  more  specifically,  of  the  line  of  David.  Among 
these  may  be  mentioned  the  Genesis  covenant  passages  (17:  6; 
35:  11)  ;  those  in  which  the  coming  king  is  directly  called  "my 
servant  David"  (Jer.  33  :  21 ;  Ezek.  37 :  25),  and  those  in  which 
his  descent  from  David  is  clearly  stated  (Micah  5:1;  Jer.  23 : 
5).  The  idea  of  this  organic  connection  between  king  and 
people  arose  early ;  we  find  it  expressed  e.  g.  in  the  Deuteron- 
omic  law  of  the  king  (17:  5)  ;  but  nothing  shows  better  how 
deep-seated  it  was  than  this  close  and  long-continued  associa- 
tion of  the  coming  ruler  with  David,  around  whom  clustered 
the  most  popular  traditions  of  the  Hebrew  people.  It  may  be 


54  Gressmann,  Ursprung  der  Israelitisch-Juedischen  Eschatolog^c, 
S.  301. 

44 


added  that  in  the  sublimer  reaches  of  prophecy  the  ideal  king 
became  in  a  way  the  representative  of  the  nations  at  large. 
He  was  to  transcend  the  Aaronic  priesthood  and  become  "a 
priest  after  the  order  of  Melchizedek"  (Ps.  110:4).  He  was 
also  to  be  a  "light  to  the  Gentiles"  (Isa.  42:6;  49:6),  for 
although  this  expression  was  originally  used  of  Israel  as  the 
servant  of  Yahweh,  harmonistic  exegesis  applied  it  also  to  the 
Messianic  King  (Enoch  48:4;  Luke  2:32). 

As  the  true  representative  of  the  people,  the  ideal  king 
was  subject  to  the  demands  of  the  social  conscience.  He  was 
to  express  in  his  own  person  and  try  to  perfect  in  the  life  of 
the  nation  its  highest  ideals.  He  was  to  be  a  king  who  would 
"reign  in  righteousness"  (Isa.  32:  1),  hating  wickedness  (Ps. 
45 : 8)  and  executing  judgment  and  justice  in  the  earth  ( Jer. 
23 :  5 ) .  He  would  fight  to  deliver  his  people  from  oppression 
and  then  inaugurate  a  reign  of  peace  (Micah  5:5;  Jer.  23: 
6).  The  idea  of  a  suffering  Messiah,  and  the  application  of 
such  a  passage  as  Isa.  53  to  the  Messianic  King  did  not  have 
any  vogue  until  the  Christian  era,55  but  the  ideal  king's  fullest 
sympathy  with  the  sufferings  of  his  people  is  assumed  every- 
where. Probably  the  best  single  picture  of  the  ideal  king,  so 
far  as  his  relations  with  the  people  are  concerned,  is  that  pre- 
served in  the  72d  Psalm.  There  we  see  a  ruler  who  judges 
with  perfect  righteousness,  whose  full  sympathy  is  with  the 
poor  and  oppressed,  whose  chief  glory  is  in  righting  human 
wrong,  whose  reign  is  attended  by  the  prosperity  of  peace  and 
plenty,  and  whose  name  is  revered  by  all  he  rules. 

Israel's  ideal  king,  therefore,  represented  two  parties,  viz., 
his  God  and  his  people,  to  both  of  whom  he  was  faithful.  It 
is  remarkable  to  what  extent  this  double  relationship  under- 
lies all  the  descriptions  of  him  which  have  come  down  to  us. 
It  appears  even  in  single  verses,  such  as  2  Sam.  23 :  3,  "One 
that  ruleth  over  men  righteously,  that  ruleth  in  the  fear  of 
God";  or  Jer.  30:21.  "And  their  ruler  shall  proceed  from  the 
midst  of  them,  *  *  *  and  he  shall  approach  unto  me" 
(Yahweh).  Isaiah,  in  the  description  of  11:1-5,  starts  with 
a  statement  of  the  ideal  king's  relation  to  the  people — "there 
shall  come  forth  a  shoot  out  of  the  stock  of  Jesse" ;  then 


55  See  Schiirer,  The  Jewish  People  in  the  Time  of  Jesus  Christ, 
Div.  2,  II,  pp.  184-6. 

45 


comes  a  statement  of  his  relation  to  Yahweh — "the  spirit  of 
Jehovah  shall  rest  upon  him";  and  the  conclusion  (vs.  3-5) 
is  a  statement  of  the  logical  outworkings  of  this  double  rela- 
tionship. 

The  most  notable  feature  of  the  future  ruler  described  by 
Ezekiel  is  the  humility  of  his  position.  This  appears  in  his 
title,  which  was  nas?  instead  of  melek,  and  in  a  corresponding 
limitation  of  his  functions.  Indeed,  he  was  to  be  little  more 
than  the  chief  patron  of  the  church.  Ezekiel's  conception  was 
undoubtedly  due  to  his  total  lack  of  sympathy  with  the  con- 
duct of  the  monarchy  in  his  own  day.  It  is  really  an  indica- 
tion of  the  strength  which  the  monarchical  institution  had  in 
the  minds  of  the  people  that  he  incorporated  it,  even  in  modi- 
fied form,  in  his  ideal  state.  However,  this  nasi' ,  with  all  his 
limitations,  was  yet  Yahweh's  servant  (34:23,  24),  and  by 
providing  sacrifices  on  all  the  feast  days  for  the  nation  at 
large,  he  showed,  in  about  the  only  way  open  to  him,  his 
national  representative  capacity  (45:17,  22).  His  actions, 
furthermore,  were  to  be  free  from  oppression  and  in  accord 
with  the  principle  of  righteousness  (45:9-12;  46:18). 

Little  is  said  of  the  ideal  king  in  the  Apocryphal  Books  of 
the  Old  Testament,  but  with  the  rise  of  Apocalyptic,  especially 
after  the  overthrow  of  the  Maccabean  dynasty,  he  comes  into 
prominence  again,  only  in  a  changed  form.  The  harsh  treat- 
ment to  which  the  Jews  had  been  subjected  begot  a  harsh 
disposition  toward  their  oppressors,  and,  indeed,  toward  all 
who  were  outside  the  pale  of  their  faith.  Hence  the  ideal 
king  assumed  a  more  terrible  aspect.  He  became  more  closely 
associated  with  the  power  of  God,  and,  particularly,  more 
severe  in  his  treatment  of  the  heathen.  And  yet  he  remained 
the  representative,  par  excellence,  of  the  deity  and  the  nation, 
and  continued  to  rule  in  accord  with  the  divine  will  and  the 
principle  of  justice  to  all  men.  In  the  Sibylline  Oracles  he  is 
a  king,  sent  of  God,  who  will  put  a  stop  to  all  war,  and,  in 
everything  he  does,  will  act  "not  according  to  his  own  counsel, 
but  in  obedience  to  the  decrees  of  the  Great  God"  (III :  652-6). 
In  the  Psalms  of  Solomon,  he  is  a  son  of  David,  "a  righteous 
king  and  one  taught  of  God"  (XVII:35).56  A  discussion  of 


56  See  Schiirer,  The  Jewish  People  in  the  Time  of  Jesus  Christ, 
Div.  2,  II,  p.  140  ff. 

46 


Daniel's  Son  of  Man  (7:  13)  as  a  messianic  title57  does  not 
come  within  our  bounds,  but  unless  one  regards  its  use  as 
purely  mechanical,  it  indicates  another  point  of  contact 
between  the  ideal  king  and  the  people  he  rules.  Finally  it  is 
interesting  to  note  that  the  recorded  words  of  Jesus  which 
describe  the  general  nature  of  his  mission,  imply  a  recog- 
nition of  the  two-fold  relationship  and  corresponding  obli- 
gations of  the  ideal  king.  "My  meat  is  to  do  the  will  of  him 
that  sent  me  and  to  accomplish  his  work"  (John  4:  34).  "The 
Son  of  Man  came  not  to  be  ministered  unto,  but  to  minister" 
(Matt.  20:28). 

These  idealizations  did  not  arise  merely  because  of  a  gen- 
eral dissatisfaction  with  the  rule  of  the  historic  kings.  The 
shortcomings  of  the  kings  and  the  final  destruction  of  the 
monarchy  undoubtedly  had  much  to  do  with  throwing  the 
ideal  picture  into  clearer  relief.  But  the  principles  involved 
were  nation-old.  The  Hebrew  genius  in  government  always 
displayed  two  sides ;  it  was  religious  and  it  was  democratic. 
The  historic  monarchy  never  measured  up  to  the  ideal,  but  it 
could  not  overthrow  the  ideal.  From  first  to  last,  though  suc- 
cessively modified  by  the  personal  equation  of  each  king  and 
his  contemporaries,  it  was  hedged  about  by  two  cardinal  limi- 
tations, viz.,  God's  law  and  the  people's  will. 


57  See  Enoch  46 :  I,  2 ;  48,  2,  etc. 

47 


BIBLIOGRAPHY. 

E.  Meyer,  Geschichte  des  Altertums,  2nd  Ed.,  ist  V.,  Cotta, 
1907-08. 

G.  H.  Ewald,  Geschichte  des  Volkes  Israel,  Vol.  2-3.  Gottingen, 
1864-66. 

B.  Stade,  Geschichte  des  Volkes  Israel,  2  V.     Berlin,  1887-88. 

C.  Piepenbring,  Histoire  du  peuple  d'Israel.     Paris,   1898. 
H.  Graetz,  History  of  the  Jews,  ist  V.     Philadelphia,  1891. 

E.  Renan,  Histoire  generate  et  systeme  compare  des  langues 
Semitiques.  Paris,  1863. 

R.  Kittel,  Geschichte  der  Hebaer,  2nd  V..     Gotha,  1892. 

W.  Nowach,  Lehrbuch  der  hebraischen  Archaologie.  Freiburg,  1894. 

J.  Benzinger,  Hebraische  Archaologie.     Freiburg,  1894. 

E.  Meyer,  Die  Israeliten  und  ihre  Nfichbarstamme.     Halle,  1906. 

C.  M.  Doughty,  Travels  in  Arabia  Deserts.     Cambridge,  1888. 

G.  A.  Smith,  Historical  Geography  of  the  Holy  Land.  London,  1894. 

G.  A.  Smith,  Jerusalem :  the  Topography,  Economics  and  History. 
London,  1907. 

J.  G.  Frazer,  Lectures  on  the  Early  History  of  the  Kingship. 
London,  1905. 

S.  Oettli,  Das  Konigsideal  des  Alten  Testament.    Greifswold,  1899. 

K.  Budde,  Schatzung  des  Konigtums  im  Alten  Testament.  Mar- 
burg, 1903. 

L.  W.  King,  History  of  Sumer  and  Akkad.     London,  1910. 

C.  F.  Kent  and  F.  K.  Sanders,  Growth  of  Israelitish  Law,  Yale 
Biblical  and  Semitic  Studies,   1902. 

E.  C.  Wines,  Laws  of  the  Ancient  Hebrews.    New  York,   1855. 
J.  Benzinger,  Art.,  "Law  and  Justice/   in  Ency.  Bib. 
J.    F.    McCurdy,    History,    Prophecy    and    the   Monuments,   3   V. 
New  York,  1894-1901. 

D.  B.   MacDonald,  Development  of   Muslim  Theology,  Jurispru- 
dence and  Constitutional  Theory.     New  York,  1903. 

D.  H.  Miiller,  Art,  "Sabaeans,"  in  Ency.  Brit.,  nth  Ed. 
R.  Pietschmann,  Geschichte  der  Phomzier.     Berlin,  1889. 

E.  Meyer,  Art.,  "Phoenicians,"  in  Ency.  Bib. 

C.  H.  Cornill,  Israelitische  Prophetismus.     Strasburg,   1906. 

D.  W.   Amram,  The  Zekenim  or   Council  of  Elders,  Jour.   Bib. 
Lit.,  1900. 

M.  Sulzberger,  The  Am-ha-Aretz.     Philadelphia,  1909. 

E.  Schiirer,  History  of  the  Jewish  People  in  the  Time  of  Jesus 
Christ,  5  V.     Edinborough,  1890-91. 

H.  Gressmann,  Der  Ursprung  der  israelitisch-jiidischen  Escha- 
tologie.  Gottingen,  1905. 

48 


INITIAL  FINE  OF  25  CENTS 


JC67 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


